# Upcoming Macbook Pro and Mac Mini rumored to support up to 64 GB Memory



## allen-garvey

For those wondering if they should wait to upgrade. The new Mac mini is also allegedly getting 4 thunderbolt ports. https://www.macrumors.com/2021/05/18/apple-working-on-high-end-mac-mini/


----------



## BassClef

...getting my credit card out!


----------



## gsilbers

it would be great. I have the mini intel and its already pretty good. 
I also got the MacBook Air and its very fast but the 16gb ram limit is tough .


----------



## JohnG

that would be amazing. Provided it doesn't overheat, that would be enough to do serious work.


----------



## Karljazz

allen-garvey said:


> For those wondering if they should wait to upgrade. The new Mac mini is also allegedly getting 4 thunderbolt ports. https://www.macrumors.com/2021/05/18/apple-working-on-high-end-mac-mini/


great new , finally a real workstation


----------



## CT

I wonder if this means the Intel model will disappear soon. Maybe I shouldn't wait for that to happen since I'm not sure I want to gamble on one of the new ones.

Ok that's exactly what it says. Damn it....


----------



## InLight-Tone

Perfect, money is spent...


----------



## Karljazz

gsilbers said:


> it would be great. I have the mini intel and its already pretty good.
> I also got the MacBook Air and its very fast but the 16gb ram limit is tough .


I have the same laptop with 16gb, I see that I do not have enough RAM for comfortable work ,i think minim for music, photos, videos workstation must be 32gb


----------



## Markrs

MacBook Pro rumors









Bloomberg: Redesigned MacBook Pro coming as soon as this summer, up to 64GB RAM and 10-core chip


A new report from Bloomberg today says that Apple’s redesigned MacBook Pro series with Apple Silicon could launch as soon as this summer. The new MacBook Pros are said to feature eight high-performance cores and two high-efficiency cores, available in either 16 or 32 graphics core variations. In...




9to5mac.com





With the M1/M1X/M2 chips (depending on the model they release) and 64gb of RAM, these could be amazing portable workhorses. They will cost a fortune especially if you want to have the top level of storage, which might be 4TB (just a guess), along with the top RAM and performance.


----------



## Karljazz

I can also say that it was a big mistake for Apple to release a macbook m1 with 2 thunderbolt ports , It is very uncomfortable , so if they release know m2 with 4 thunderbolt it will definitely convince those who have m1 to sell them and buy m2


----------



## rnb_2

Karljazz said:


> I can also say that it was a big mistake for Apple to release a macbook m1 with 2 thunderbolt ports , It is very uncomfortable , so if they release know m2 with 4 thunderbolt it will definitely convince those who have m1 to sell them and buy m2


I don't think it's right to call it a mistake just because it doesn't work for everyone. For a mass-market laptop, two Thunderbolt ports is fine. Based on the number of threads here asking "can an M1 Mac do this?", it appears that the M1 Macs offer so much performance for the money that people are inspired to see if they can be used for tasks that they never would have attempted with low-end x86 computers.


----------



## storyteller

I feel like I'm in a stalemate with making a decision on my upgrade right now. But I NEED to make a decision asap. Say I want 256gb minimum of ram... (which i do)... Is that two intel 27" iMacs or a Mac Pro for future expandibility? Say I want 384gb of ram... (which I would prefer)... that is either 3 iMacs (of which space is limited) or a mac pro... but 3 iMacs gets you 30 cores of processing with less power draw than a Mac Pro... but where do you put them? They block out any normal monitor heights if lined up in front of you and are not really future-proofed in the way a Mac Pro is.

Buy a mac pro, then it is $3k in 3rd party ram + potentially $2k in SSD options, plus a monitor solution (since I've been using iMacs and really don't want to give up that awesome display)... So there is $5-$7k in required upgrades for the Mac Pro... plus the base unit price for whichever model you choose. My OCD doesn't want less than a retina display... so that leaves a less than sleek, overpriced LG monitor, or the Mac Pro Display... $$$. I guess I could go 4k on a bigger monitor and not rely on retina 2x detail. That may be the only reasonable solution... or....

Wait on a Mac Mini fArm... how much will that 64gb cost? Then it is x4 or more at least. That seems cost prohibitive when looking at the current mini cost when maxed out. Maybe a new iMac PRO whenever it arrives? I shudder to think about the soldered on ram costs and limitations. The Mac Pro is suddenly looking great again...

But now you realize they are PCIE 3.0 and the new Xeon chips Intel has released with PCIE 4.0 have a new socket. So now you are standing on a technology shift across every "professional" system out there. Will it last 5 years? Of course. And it will pay for itself without a doubt. But still...

How is that ram shortage going to affect costs? In 2015, 32gb of ram was the same price as 128gb now. But I have a hard time thinking we will see a similar dip moving forward. We've reached a bit of a plateau with conventional ram unless you go LRDimm which requires server-grade chips.

PC maybe? Nope. Aside from the user experience giving me the heebie-jeebies every time I use a Windows PC, anything 256gb+ requires an Intel Xeon anyway.. or fighting with the Ryzen incompatibilities and being limited to 256gb. We are right back at Mac Pro prices and impossible to find components. So back to the Mac Pro or multi-iMac situation...

You see how this vicious cycle is going. I do video editing too, so that requires a great graphics card. They are impossible to find on the PC side, so that is another strike on that side. Back to Mac Pro I guess?


----------



## Jett Hitt

If the current Mac 64GB Mini is a parallel, these new minis are going run $2.5-3k tricked out. I am not sure they could convince anyone to spend more for a Mini. Before a decision could be made, though, one would have to be able to set the upcoming iMac beside it and see whether it is really worth it to forgo Apple's display.


----------



## rnb_2

storyteller said:


> I feel like I'm in a stalemate with making a decision on my upgrade right now. But I NEED to make a decision asap. Say I want 256gb minimum of ram... (which i do)... Is that two intel 27" iMacs or a Mac Pro for future expandibility? Say I want 384gb of ram... (which I would prefer)... that is either 3 iMacs (of which space is limited) or a mac pro... but 3 iMacs gets you 30 cores of processing with less power draw than a Mac Pro... but where do you put them? They block out any normal monitor heights if lined up in front of you and are not really future-proofed in the way a Mac Pro is.
> 
> Buy a mac pro, then it is $3k in 3rd party ram + potentially $2k in SSD options, plus a monitor solution (since I've been using iMacs and really don't want to give up that awesome display)... So there is $5-$7k in required upgrades for the Mac Pro... plus the base unit price for whichever model you choose. My OCD doesn't want less than a retina display... so that leaves a less than sleek, overpriced LG monitor, or the Mac Pro Display... $$$. I guess I could go 4k on a bigger monitor and not rely on retina 2x detail. That may be the only reasonable solution... or....
> 
> Wait on a Mac Mini fArm... how much will that 64gb cost? Then it is x4 or more at least. That seems cost prohibitive when looking at the current mini cost when maxed out. Maybe a new iMac PRO whenever it arrives? I shudder to think about the soldered on ram costs and limitations. The Mac Pro is suddenly looking great again...
> 
> But now you realize they are PCIE 3.0 and the new Xeon chips Intel has released with PCIE 4.0 have a new socket. So now you are standing on a technology shift across every "professional" system out there. Will it last 5 years? Of course. And it will pay for itself without a doubt. But still...
> 
> How is that ram shortage going to affect costs? In 2015, 32gb of ram was the same price as 128gb now. But I have a hard time thinking we will see a similar dip moving forward. We've reached a bit of a plateau with conventional ram unless you go LRDimm which requires server-grade chips.
> 
> PC maybe? Nope. Aside from the user experience giving me the heebie-jeebies every time I use a Windows PC, anything 256gb+ requires an Intel Xeon anyway.. or fighting with the Ryzen incompatibilities and being limited to 256gb. We are right back at Mac Pro prices and impossible to find components. So back to the Mac Pro or multi-iMac situation...
> 
> You see how this vicious cycle is going. I do video editing too, so that requires a great graphics card. They are impossible to find on the PC side, so that is another strike on that side. Back to Mac Pro I guess?


As painful as it might be, if you need to buy in the near future, the Mac Pro is really the only choice. You should probably talk to @JohnG about his experiences.


----------



## davidson

It is good news, but the prices are no doubt going to be astronomically extortionate. It's currently £1,000 to go from 8gb to 64gb in the intel mini. I mean, seriously...


----------



## river angler

As far as MacBook pros are concerned they can sling as much RAM as they like into their new models but I for one won't change my trusty mid 2012 for any new model until they bring back double internal hard drive options plus generous peripheral connectivity. I get by fine with 16GB RAM plus 1TB and 2TB internal SSD drives for system and library content respectively plus an external 1TB SSD for audio scratch! The modern MacBook pros are are a joke with their minimalist design and extortionate prices!


----------



## rnb_2

river angler said:


> As far as MacBook pros are concerned they can sling as much RAM as they like into their new models but i won't change my trusty mid 2012 for any new model until they bring back double internal hard drive options plus generous peripheral connectivity. I get by fine with 16GB RAM plus 1TB and 2TB internal drives!


Will you take one out of two? Because with soldered storage, the days of multiple internal drives are long, long gone. The next MacBook Pro is supposedly bringing back MagSafe, the SD card reader, and HDMI, though.


----------



## Karljazz

rnb_2 said:


> I don't think it's right to call it a mistake just because it doesn't work for everyone. For a mass-market laptop, two Thunderbolt ports is fine. Based on the number of threads here asking "can an M1 Mac do this?", it appears that the M1 Macs offer so much performance for the money that people are inspired to see if they can be used for tasks that they never would have attempted with low-end x86 computers.


most laptop on the market are sold with a large number of different ports , therefore comparisons with mass-market laptops not entirely objective, i don't think it's fine. in fact, this computer has only one free port, since the second is charging port. I agree that this computer has much performance for the money , but the problem is that there is still no much support for third-party developers.


----------



## rnb_2

Karljazz said:


> most laptop on the market are sold with a large number of different ports , therefore comparisons with mass-market laptops not entirely objective, i don't think it's fine. in fact, this computer has only one free port, since the second is charging port.


Most people don't plug many things into a laptop, and the battery life on the M1s is so good that you will have two free ports the vast majority of the time.


----------



## SupremeFist

davidson said:


> It is good news, but the prices are no doubt going to be astronomically extortionate. It's currently £1,000 to go from 8gb to 64gb in the intel mini. I mean, seriously...


Yes but at least you can currently do it yourself for £300. I'd be surprised if the RAM in the new Mx machines were user-upgradeable though...


----------



## river angler

rnb_2 said:


> Will you take one out of two? Because with soldered storage, the days of multiple internal drives are long, long gone. The next MacBook Pro is supposedly bringing back MagSafe, the SD card reader, and HDMI, though.


"One out of two?"... if you are referring to internal drives: definitely not! The internal drives run smoother for library instruments and the original USB buss speed (up to about 480mps) is ample fast enough for external audio scratch.

I use the thunderbolt output to attach a VGA connected monitor and the firewire 800 port for my audio interface. It's a perfect system!... I even use the ethernet for internet rather than having wifi signal flying round my ears!

A Modern music tech store is like an Aladin's cave in a fishing tackle shop:there's more modern gear out there to catch anglers than fish!

Mac lost the plot as far as providing for composers is concerned a long time ago! I get it though: it's because their main market is a consumer/trend/fashion one.


----------



## rnb_2

SupremeFist said:


> Yes but at least you can currently do it yourself for £300. I'd be surprised if the RAM in the new Mx machines were user-upgradeable though...


This will be interesting to see play out. Based on current laptops (which haven't had user-upgradeable RAM in several years), I'm guessing that it will be $800US to upgrade a 16GB config to 64GB, assuming that there isn't extra cost in the on-package RAM that Apple is likely to continue using. On the other hand, there may be some savings from not paying Intel, and that may allow the base configs to be less expensive than the models they replace.


----------



## storyteller

Apple's Intel savings is interesting to me. I'm sure they won't release numbers, but I'd guess Intel is not very efficient with costs. But, even so, Intel can spread profits over sales to more manufacturers due to greater volume than Apple will be able to muster up on its own. I can't imagine that Apple's own chip manufacturing is a massive savings due to the volume component... unless Intel was just gouging them.


----------



## SupremeFist

rnb_2 said:


> On the other hand, there may be some savings from not paying Intel, and that may allow the base configs to be less expensive than the models they replace.


Or it may just allow Apple to increase their profit margins!


----------



## river angler

... 15" MacBook Pro 2.3gHz with i7 processor (+3rd party 16GB RAM) was £1260 in 2012- the modern equivalent is £2,800 !! One begs the question: what is one really paying for!?!


----------



## rnb_2

river angler said:


> "One out of two?"... if you are referring to internal drives: definitely not! The internal drives run smoother for library instruments and the original USB buss speed (up to about 480mps) is ample fast enough for external audio scratch.
> 
> I use the thunderbolt output to attach a VGA connected monitor and the firewire 800 port for my audio interface. It's a perfect system!... I even use the ethernet for internet rather than having wifi signal flying round my ears!
> 
> A Modern music tech store is like an Aladin's cave in a fishing tackle shop:there's more modern gear out there to catch anglers than fish!
> 
> Mac lost the plot as far as providing for composers is concerned a long time ago! I get it though: it's because their main market is a consumer/trend/fashion one.


If it works for you, great, but be prepared to stick with that machine forever. There is only one Mac in the current lineup - the well-hidden 21.5" iMac - that even has a SATA controller for an internal drive of any kind, let alone two.


river angler said:


> ... 15" MacBook Pro 2.3gHz with i7 processor (+3rd party 16GB RAM) was £1260 in 2012- the modern equivalent is £2,800 !! One begs the question: what is one really paying for!?!


Much higher resolution screens, much faster storage, CPUs with more cores (Intel) or much faster cores (Apple Silicon), thinner and lighter. Time marches on.

Edit: With Apple Silicon, runs much cooler and uses much less power.


----------



## rnb_2

SupremeFist said:


> Or it may just allow Apple to increase their profit margins!


Certainly possible, but the base price of the M1 Mac mini was $100 less than the base i3 model that it replaced.


----------



## Dewdman42

Its just a rumor. I find it hard to believe they will have a 64gb chip that soon..but hey..if they do...that will be a worthy contender for us...I agree...

Thing is... most consumers don't need 64gb and I just find it hard to believe that Apple would release the next gen Mac mini with the memory on chip being that large...at least this soon. That is more like what they would position for the macPro perhaps eventually. From what I have read about the silicon chip....there is a lot they have to figure out about getting that many GB's into the chip...just the size of the chip alone is a challenge. In the mini? I'm skeptical.

So I'll believe the rumor when I see it. 

I think Apple could simply release the next Mac mini with more ports, a bit faster...and frankly I'm expecting the next round to still be 16gb but I'd be happy o see them 32gb in the next rev...which I give 50/50 odds. I'm extremely skeptical about this 64gb rumor. but...if they did...I do think this could be a likely good interim silicon-jump machine while we wait for next gen MacPro..


----------



## Dewdman42

storyteller said:


> I feel like I'm in a stalemate with making a decision on my upgrade right now. But I NEED to make a decision asap.


If you need it ASAP, I would just bit the bullet and get the 2019 MP. Spend $10k, and love the machine for 5+ years. Whoa that is $2k/year. well when you put it that way...that is why I'm holding out with my cMP for now.

I do not like any of the other solutions you mentioned, its just too early to make a big decision. If it were me, I don't know what you have now, but I'd just fix up an affordable VePro server for the time being and keep waiting. Its going to be better in a couple years with more and better choices..and the $10k MP won't be the only option. Right now it kind of is for this kind of use case.


----------



## river angler

rnb_2 said:


> If it works for you, great, but be prepared to stick with that machine forever. There is only one Mac in the current lineup - the well-hidden 21.5" iMac - that even has a SATA controller for an internal drive of any kind, let alone two.
> 
> Much higher resolution screens, much faster storage, CPUs with more cores (Intel) or much faster cores (Apple Silicon), thinner and lighter. Time marches on.
> 
> Edit: With Apple Silicon, runs much cooler and uses much less power.


Sure it's all "faster" but really how much faster does one really need! I've yet to annoy any client with a late deadline and even though rendering in Logic might well be quicker even on a ten minute 80 track arrangement: who doesn't have time for a 2 minute wait!?!

With Logic's freeze functionality I only find i start needing to use it after about 70/80 instances of instrument plugins so RAM is never really a problem.

I remember when I first got my 2012 MBP having migrated from a somewhat cumbersome G5 powermac: I actually found the MBP's then comparable agility a little unnerving!

I dare say modern MBP speeds would be lightning fast. I ain't no old fart but for me having come from tape originally there's a lot to be said for tools taking a little time to work: it helps to confirm a task is being carried out plus one can organise ones working routines accordingly to the workflow.

Man is obsessed with speed and ergonomics! However I find I work just fine by the age old motto: "more haste- less speed!" and "better the devil you know'!


----------



## Karljazz

rnb_2 said:


> Most people don't plug many things into a laptop, and the battery life on the M1s is so good that you will have two free ports the vast majority of the time.


maybe so but
I don't think it's a good idea , to work on battery all the time , battery life time will degrade very quickly


----------



## mscp

river angler said:


> ... 15" MacBook Pro 2.3gHz with i7 processor (+3rd party 16GB RAM) was £1260 in 2012- the modern equivalent is £2,800 !! One begs the question: what is one really paying for!?!


fanboyism (and/or) OS. Most people I know pay for the OS or Logic because they can't get it on PC. Taste is great. I for one will remain on PCs until Apple can make a Mac Pro that speaks to me. As for laptops, I'll stay on Macs until PC MFRS can build with decent retina displays and trackpads. I'm excited about their new lineup.


----------



## Loïc D

I wet my pants a bit.
Hope that will be true specs.


----------



## rnb_2

Karljazz said:


> maybe so but
> I don't think it's a good idea , to work on battery all the time , battery life time will degrade very quickly


That's what things were like with x86, but everybody who reviewed the M1 laptops said that the batteries last a shockingly long time, to the point that you actually have to *remember* to charge them because you don't have to charge them all the time. These aren't Intel laptops that have 2-hour battery life if you ask them to do anything strenuous (not to mention the fan noise and heat).


----------



## storyteller

JohnG said:


> that would be amazing. Provided it doesn't overheat, that would be enough to do serious work.


John, What setup did you land on for your MP? I recall 16c/384gb. I think I remember you saying you dump to an external PT rig as well. Monitor solution? Did you migrate to a Sonnet or OWC 4x4 m2, or stick with thunderbolt sata SSDs? If you load up VEPro to the max, what is your idle cpu? Just curious... I’ve really gotta make a decision here shortly and currently I am in a high-noon stand-off with Apple reality vs. future Apple unknowns.

Maybe this isn’t for this thread. Apologies if it is a bit of a tangent to the original post.


----------



## M_Helder

I cringe at the thought of potential price for these babies. Especially at the current RUB to $ conversion rate…

But that does seem to be the dream workhorse machine for me.


----------



## jcrosby

river angler said:


> ... 15" MacBook Pro 2.3gHz with i7 processor (+3rd party 16GB RAM) was £1260 in 2012- the modern equivalent is £2,800 !! One begs the question: what is one really paying for!?!


As someone who had that machine, newer intel macs handle twice the work that that old machine did in most cases. You're also capable of running more RAM, which if/when you need it there's no way around it... While MB's have gotten pricy you do get twice the machine for a little more than twice the price. Overall my current MBP even outpaces my 12 core 3.46 MP. While the MP does better in MC its single core performance is painful. Many instruments and plugins that run with a small CPU footprint on my MB run with a medium to heavy load on the MP. In some cases the load is around 3x worse on the MP.

As far as internal drive bays.. They're never coming back. I'm not a fan of that at all. I can't even count the number of times I've opened up a MB and replaced drives, added memory, even replaced batteries when they were replaceable, etc. But at some point you need to move on, or be forced to move on when that machine eventually fails. 

Even if you get 5 more years out of it you'll almost certainly need to replace the battery before then... Either way failure is inevitable if you're doing a lot of CPU heavy work on that machine. The wear and tear those high temps put on a machine shorten its lifespan, especially when everything is crammed together in a tiny case with virtually no ventilation.

My main point is that everything has a trade off. And while I hate Apple's eco-shitty design I also need to get work done and the newer MB's have not disappointed in terms of their performance. The price is high, but they deliver about twice the horsepower compared to those ancient 4 core i7s.


----------



## river angler

jcrosby said:


> As someone who had that machine, newer intel macs handle twice the work that that old machine did in most cases. You're also capable of running more RAM, which if/when you need it there's no way around it... While MB's have gotten pricy you do get twice the machine for a little more than twice the price. Overall my current MBP even outpaces my 12 core 3.46 MP. While the MP does better in MC its single core performance is painful. Many instruments and plugins that run with a small CPU footprint on my MB run with a medium to heavy load on the MP. In some cases the load is around 3x worse on the MP.
> 
> As far as internal drive bays.. They're never coming back. I'm not a fan of that at all. I can't even count the number of times I've opened up a MB and replaced drives, added memory etc. But at some point you need to move on, or be forced to move on when that machine eventually fails. Even if you get 5 more years out of it you'll almost certainly need to replace the battery before then... Either way failure is inevitable if you're doing a lot of CPU heavy work on that machine. The wear and tear those high temps put on a machine shorten its lifespan, especially when everything is crammed together in a tiny case with virtually no ventilation.
> 
> My main point is that everything has a trade off. And while I hate Apple's eco-shitty design I also need to get work done and the newer MB's have not disappointed in terms of their performance. The price is high, but they deliver about twice the horsepower compared to those ancient 4 core i7s.


...I hear you of course!

I actually rarely run the MBP without the mains these days but have replaced it once in 9 years.

The main reason I can see myself being forced to changing will be when the software developers no longer support Catalina. I'm actually still running on High Sierra. If I wanted the new features of Logic 10.5 for example I would have to move up to Catalina but I'm content with 10.48. However the next major Logic update is likely to exclude Catalina and if it really brings new functionality I feel I really can't do without: that will be the time to move on.


----------



## rnb_2

river angler said:


> If I wanted the new features of Logic 10.5 for example I would have to move up to Catalina but I'm content with 10.48. However the next major Logic update is likely to exclude Catalina and if it really brings new functionality I feel I really can't do without: that will be the time to move on.


Why do you suspect that the next Logic update would exclude Catalina? With the baggage that Catalina jettisoned, I'd expect it to remain supported for a bit longer.


----------



## Justin L. Franks

I don't think that report is accurate, a lot of it doesn't make sense. A 10-core CPU with 8 Firestorm cores and 2 Icestorm cores? A jump from 8 GPU cores straight to 32? I also don't think they will be going with a 64 GB RAM option with the next release.

My money is on a 12-core CPU (8 Firestorm / 4 Icestorm), GPU options with 12 or 16 cores, and a maximum of 32 GB in this iteration, with the same architecture as the current M1. 64 GB of RAM and 32 GPU cores will be coming with the M2, and will be using the ARMv9 instruction set.


----------



## river angler

rnb_2 said:


> Why do you suspect that the next Logic update would exclude Catalina? With the baggage that Catalina jettisoned, I'd expect it to remain supported for a bit longer.


Well they dropped support of High Sierra which was a popular Mac OS with Logic 10.5 ... I'm just saying that it's inevitable Apple will drop Catalina at some point in the same way that they drop support of their older machines themselves with every OS release. We all know it's their company policy to shift the goal posts for a year of manufacture support or a key piece of software they know everyone uses to goad us into buying new systems!

I guess from a financial point of view I can't complain with an initial £1260 investment that's still going strong after nearly a decade. However I just find it disproportionate how Apple charge double for a replacement these days... for when one looks at an average turn around like this one could argue that I was getting the same "twice the power" you mention back in 2012 when I moved from what was actually a G4 system. The G5 I only had for 6 months realising I wanted to go portable so for me the true leap was from a 2002 QuickSilver G4 system to the 2012 MBPro which was a night and day upgrade in speed and efficiency back then! Not only this but the MBPro was actually cheaper than the G4!


----------



## rnb_2

river angler said:


> Well they dropped support of High Sierra which was a popular Mac OS with Logic 10.5 ... I'm just saying that it's inevitable Apple will drop Catalina at some point in the same way that they drop support of their older machines themselves with every OS release. We all know it's their company policy to shift the goal posts for a year of manufacture support or a key piece of software they know everyone uses at some point to force us into buying new systems!
> 
> I guess from a financial point of view I can't complain with an initial £1260 investment that's still going strong after nearly a decade however I just find it disproportionate how Apple charge double for a replacement these days... for when one looks at an average turn around like this one could argue that I was getting the same "twice the power" you mention back in 2012 when I moved from what was actually a G4 system. The G5 I only had for 6 months realising I wanted to go portable so for me the true leap was from a 2002 QuickSilver G4 system to the 2012 MBPro which was a night and day upgrade in speed and efficiency back then! Not only this but the MBPro was actually cheaper than the G4!


Of course, eventually, every OS will eventually be unsupported at some point. Even Microsoft and many big developers require certain releases of Windows 10 these days, so it's not just Apple.

Unfortunately, the night-and-day difference you saw from the G4 to the 2012 MBP vs the slower pace of improvement since then just goes to show a major reason why Apple moved to their own processors: Intel hit a wall a few years ago, and per-core performance flattened out. The only way to get more performance was to add more cores, but many common tasks rely primarily on a single core. The M1 is a good 50% faster in single-core performance than any current Intel Mac, and it's the slowest Apple Silicon SOC that will ever be made. Its single-core performance is over twice as fast as your 2012 MBP, and multi-core is about 2.5x.


----------



## river angler

rnb_2 said:


> Of course, eventually, every OS will eventually be unsupported at some point. Even Microsoft and many big developers require certain releases of Windows 10 these days, so it's not just Apple.
> 
> Unfortunately, the night-and-day difference you saw from the G4 to the 2012 MBP vs the slower pace of improvement since then just goes to show a major reason why Apple moved to their own processors: Intel hit a wall a few years ago, and per-core performance flattened out. The only way to get more performance was to add more cores, but many common tasks rely primarily on a single core. The M1 is a good 50% faster in single-core performance than any current Intel Mac, and it's the slowest Apple Silicon SOC that will ever be made. Its single-core performance is over twice as fast as your 2012 MBP, and multi-core is about 2.5x.


Well again I hear you technically speaking! However the real live working change experience certainly felt like a massive leap at the time I can assure you! And again the slower single core performance thing can be negated by freeze. Funnily enough when I mentioned about 70/80 track counts I wasn't even purging samples either!

...it's all marketing!

I might add that I would only ever change if I felt the current technology I was using was seriously hampering my creative workflow and for now that just isn't an issue!

Perhaps to get back on thread!... If I was forced to change systems I'd go the Mac mini route rather than the MBPro simply because the current MBPro design is counter intuitive to it's original portable concept with its lack of periphery connection- I hate using hubs!


----------



## Vik

Its great that there will be a 64 gb M1/M1x/M2 Mac (hopefully) soon, but if the only option is to buy RAM from Apple (because its an integrated part if the processor), it will hold a lot of users away from buying it – unless Apple does something with the prices.

Maybe they’ll offer en option to combine integrated RAM with using fast 3rd part RAM? That would probably mean less ideal performance than when using only integrated RAM, but I guess most of us would be OK with that? I would.


----------



## gst98

Justin L. Franks said:


> I don't think that report is accurate, a lot of it doesn't make sense. A 10-core CPU with 8 Firestorm cores and 2 Icestorm cores? A jump from 8 GPU cores straight to 32? I also don't think they will be going with a 64 GB RAM option with the next release.
> 
> My money is on a 12-core CPU (8 Firestorm / 4 Icestorm), GPU options with 12 or 16 cores, and a maximum of 32 GB in this iteration, with the same architecture as the current M1. 64 GB of RAM and 32 GPU cores will be coming with the M2, and will be using the ARMv9 instruction set.


Mark Gurman has an 88.7% leak accuracy according to appletrack, so it is fairly unlikely that he's wrong.

But why do you doubt it? Apple said they will replace the whole lineup in two years, so they have to replace the higher spec machines sooner or later.


----------



## Justin L. Franks

gst98 said:


> Mark Gurman has an 88.7% leak accuracy according to appletrack, so it is fairly unlikely that he's wrong.
> 
> But why do you doubt it? Apple said they will replace the whole lineup in two years, so they have to replace the higher spec machines sooner or later.


I'm not doubting that more powerful AS Macs are coming this year. I just don't think the specifics mentioned in the article make a lot of sense.

M1 has 4 Firestorm (high-performance) and 4 Icestorm (high-efficiency) cores. The M1X, or whatever Apple decides to call it, is certainly going to have more high-performance cores, but reducing the number of high-efficiency cores to two would be a strange move. 8 Firestorm / 4 Icestorm makes much more sense than a 8/2 arrangement. There are plenty of background processes always going on, that if there are only 2 high-efficiency cores, the OS might end up needing to push some of those processes onto the high-performance cores.

And these are almost certainly going to be "extensions" of the M1 architecture. That is, they will use the exact same cores in the CPU and GPU, but just have more of them. Quadrupling the GPU cores from 8 to 32 also doesn't seem likely, because the memory bus width and bandwidth would remain the same, making it difficult to even take advantage of all those extra GPU cores. 12 or 16 GPU cores is a more reasonable step forward.

If this is the case, then we won't see the truly high-end stuff until the M2, or more likely, the M2X (or again, whatever Apple decides to call the "extended" versions of their chips. These will have generational improvements in the cores themselves. That is, it won't just be slapping on more of the same M1 cores, there will be newer core designs with performance increases "core for core" compared to the M1.


----------



## Nimrod7

JohnG said:


> that would be amazing. Provided it doesn't overheat, that would be enough to do serious work.


Exactly, the 2018 I have right now is almost unusable to heavy workflows. 
The power and specs are there (well, except from GPU), but to get the full potential you have to put it in a fridge. 

Hope the 2021 will operate properly and not throttle.


----------



## RyanRhea

What makes people think Apple is somehow JUMPING right to a bigger set of specs just out of nowhere? lol If they are indeed coming out with a 12 (or more core) processor and 32-64GB of RAM then you can bet this chipset has existed in a lab somewhere for quite some time.

Product dev like this takes a while. So none of this happened just yesterday. I can't wait to get my mitts on one when they come out (hopefully a 64GB RAM model). 🤟🏻


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

river angler said:


> I guess from a financial point of view I can't complain with an initial £1260 investment that's still going strong after nearly a decade. However I just find it disproportionate how Apple charge double for a replacement these days


But it’s all relative. Your initial £1260 would be the same as buying a new, similar Mac in 2021 when you consider inflation. I paid $3000 for my 2013 MB Pro in 2012 (which is now running Bug Sur), but my 2020 iMac is actually a better value when you consider inflation.


----------



## Karljazz

rnb_2 said:


> That's what things were like with x86, but everybody who reviewed the M1 laptops said that the batteries last a shockingly long time, to the point that you actually have to *remember* to charge them because you don't have to charge them all the time. These aren't Intel laptops that have 2-hour battery life if you ask them to do anything strenuous (not to mention the fan noise and heat).


it's not about architecture x86,silicon they all have same batteries i'ts lithium, which have the same lifespan. yes m1 batteries runs 3 times more due to low energy consumption. but if you work only from the battery, as I said earlier, you will kill her in a 1-2 years.


----------



## allen-garvey

Justin L. Franks said:


> I'm not doubting that more powerful AS Macs are coming this year. I just don't think the specifics mentioned in the article make a lot of sense.
> 
> M1 has 4 Firestorm (high-performance) and 4 Icestorm (high-efficiency) cores. The M1X, or whatever Apple decides to call it, is certainly going to have more high-performance cores, but reducing the number of high-efficiency cores to two would be a strange move. 8 Firestorm / 4 Icestorm makes much more sense than a 8/2 arrangement. There are plenty of background processes always going on, that if there are only 2 high-efficiency cores, the OS might end up needing to push some of those processes onto the high-performance cores.
> 
> And these are almost certainly going to be "extensions" of the M1 architecture. That is, they will use the exact same cores in the CPU and GPU, but just have more of them. Quadrupling the GPU cores from 8 to 32 also doesn't seem likely, because the memory bus width and bandwidth would remain the same, making it difficult to even take advantage of all those extra GPU cores. 12 or 16 GPU cores is a more reasonable step forward.
> 
> If this is the case, then we won't see the truly high-end stuff until the M2, or more likely, the M2X (or again, whatever Apple decides to call the "extended" versions of their chips. These will have generational improvements in the cores themselves. That is, it won't just be slapping on more of the same M1 cores, there will be newer core designs with performance increases "core for core" compared to the M1.


The fact that the specifics are unexpected makes me believe it is more likely to be true, since it means they must have some sort of proof. If it was what everyone expected I would think it more likely to just be an educated guess.


----------



## Dewdman42

But these go to 11!


----------



## Karljazz

it would be very cool if apple would return support Egpu new video cards _AMD Radeon_ RX 6800 XT to m2


----------



## rnb_2

Karljazz said:


> it's not about architecture x86,silicon they all have same batteries i'ts lithium, which have the same lifespan. yes m1 batteries runs 3 times more due to low energy consumption. but if you work only from the battery, as I said earlier, you will kill her in a 1-2 years.


Charge-discharge cycles are the key for battery wear. The longer the battery lasts between charges, the less often you go through a charge-discharge cycle, the longer the battery's useful life.


----------



## JohnG

storyteller said:


> John, What setup did you land on for your MP? I recall 16c/384gb. I think I remember you saying you dump to an external PT rig as well. Monitor solution? Did you migrate to a Sonnet or OWC 4x4 m2, or stick with thunderbolt sata SSDs? If you load up VEPro to the max, what is your idle cpu? Just curious... I’ve really gotta make a decision here shortly and currently I am in a high-noon stand-off with Apple reality vs. future Apple unknowns.
> 
> Maybe this isn’t for this thread. Apologies if it is a bit of a tangent to the original post.


I will PM you


----------



## gsilbers

Also the announcement of the new Mac pros rumors. with like 40 cores? or something. 
amazing. 

glad I dint get the new Mac pros. its like reliving 2006 again. those who went with Mac Pro intel still have that computer around but not so much with the PPCs. 
Yes, apple "supported" the ppc for a little while... but the painting is on the wall. those xeon Mac pros will be obsolete in a couple of years after the new ones are released. No matter how hard apple tries to say otherwise. 

ill be happy with the new Mac mini if it gets to 64gb of ram. I have my Intel Mac mini so I could built my own Mac cube of 128gb of ram 

there was a rumor of small Mac pros or what it seems to be Mac cubes like the old ones. 
im guessing the issue is those graphic cards that are pretty large. 
apple seems to be trying to use the same exact spec for every form factor. M1 for MacBook, MacBook Air, Mac mini and iMac and iPad Pro are all pretty much the same. 

from the looks of the rumors, its seems the m1x will be the same in that regard. MacBook Pro with 64bg. Mac mini w 64gb. iMac w 64gb. not sure iPad Pro. 

maybe that's the plan. m1 for the office manager. m1x for semi pro, music professionals and creatives. and Mac Pro w m2 for extreme stuff.


----------



## river angler

Jeremy Spencer said:


> But it’s all relative. Your initial £1260 would be the same as buying a new, similar Mac in 2021 when you consider inflation. I paid $3000 for my 2013 MB Pro in 2012 (which is now running Bug Sur), but my 2020 iMac is actually a better value when you consider inflation.


Well regardless of inflation it's the actual current minimalist MBP design of the product itself that doesn't match the hefty price tag for me no matter how much faster it runs. Period!

What's the point of having a so called "portable" music DAW computer with only one internal drive that in this modern age we all know at vey basic computer housekeeping level is detrimental to also house library sample content on, let alone record to it as well!

I just find it silly that with all this "thin" microchip design technology they don't provide more than one SSD drive in the chassis especially with the new NVMe technology. And for Pete's sake bring back the buss connectivity! Bugger the "thin line" design! Hubs are a PITA let alone the bottlenecking!

I'm not venting here! promise!...After all, again, the reason why Apple have gone minimalist over the last decade is to appeal to their number one market which is of course the every day consumer: us pro creative types are pretty low on their marketing list!


----------



## Dewdman42

gsilbers said:


> ill be happy with the new Mac mini if it gets to 64gb of ram. I have my Intel Mac mini so I could built my own Mac cube of 128gb of ram



I am pretty sure I will end up using my cMP as a VePro Slave in the foreseeable future and will use whatever silicon ARM Mac I need to, in order to run the DAW. But me personally, I am not in ANY rush to be on BigSur or silicon ARM. I personally like Catalina better. Apple will require Big Sur at some point in order to get the most up to date LogicPro, but even that is not a hard requirement for me. I'll get there when I get there. I don't understand the rush and panic people have about getting on the bandwagon frankly. Catalina works great. Intel works great. It will definitely be a few more years, possibly as many as 5+ more years until Intel won't work. I feel Apple has done a much better job this time around of creating a development path in order for developers to support both Intel and ARM in their products and I think it will be quite a while before Intel support is cut off. Apple is still selling the Intel MacPro now...In my view they will not drop support for at least 5 years just because of that. There will be a time eventually when Intel hardware will fall off a cliff, but we are a long long ways away from that. There is no need to freak out yet. As of right now, I'd still rather be on Intel then ARM given the choice. I'm not moving to ARM until every single piece of software I want to use runs natively on ARM...and when Apple has many more hardware choices then exist right now. 2025 maybe.


----------



## Tronam

Karljazz said:


> it's not about architecture x86,silicon they all have same batteries i'ts lithium, which have the same lifespan. yes m1 batteries runs 3 times more due to low energy consumption. but if you work only from the battery, as I said earlier, you will kill her in a 1-2 years.


I run a freeware utility on my M1 MBP called AlDente which limits the battery charge to any % I choose. So, for long plug-in sessions I just set it to 50% and it prevents those long periods at 100% which degrades li-ion cells. I normally limit it to 80% because the battery life is so ridiculously good on that laptop that I still only need to charge once every 2 or 3 days. I suspect these batteries will last far longer than on past Intel models.


----------



## Composer 2021

So, I _need _a new computer ASAP. I want the i7 Mac Mini but I don't wanna hit myself later if the next Mac Mini is the greatest machine ever at a decent price. Mac laptops are not in my budget. Decisions, decisions...


----------



## rnb_2

Composer 2021 said:


> So, I _need _a new computer ASAP. I want the i7 Mac Mini but I don't wanna hit myself later if the next Mac Mini is the greatest machine ever at a decent price. Mac laptops are not in my budget. Decisions, decisions...


You'd probably be safe ordering in the next couple days so that you receive early next week and get inside the 2-week return window with Apple, then wait and see what gets announced on June 7th. There's always a faster computer coming, and you know that the Intel mini will run what you want to run.


----------



## Michael Antrum

I have a 13" M! Mac Pro with 512gb SSD and 8Ggb RAM - I use for my all my work - except for music stuff.

For anything other than music, it is seriously the best laptop I have ever had. Stupid quick, runs cool, battery life is off the scale, and it is light and compact.

For many people, the M! Mac with 8/16gb RAM is all they will ever need.

I keep my music hardware dedicated...


----------



## tabulius

I'm curious to see how the M1X with 64GB of ram will perform against Ryzen Zen 3 64GB of ram. If they are relatively close, the Mac Mini is very tempting. I suspect that a desktop CPU still beats the M-chip in heavy music projects, but I might be wrong. The Zen3 Threadrippers are rumored to come around August or the end of Q3, so 64GB+ ram will be possible. I still think that getting more than 64GB of ram is more future proof. Sample libraries just keep getting bigger and bigger.


----------



## Composer 2021

rnb_2 said:


> There's always a faster computer coming, and you know that the Intel mini will run what you want to run.


Yeah, my wistful thinking is getting to me. Anything will run better than my laptop's mobile 2 core 6th gen "processor". Heh


----------



## Composer 2021

If the next set of M chips has 16 GB of memory as the minimum spec, that will be very good for the future of entry level computers. 8 GB needs to go back to 2014 and die. Imagine in a couple years getting a MacBook Air that can do anything that a spec'd out Intel machine can do.


----------



## Composer 2021

Another thought - The rumors suggest that the next M chip will have 16 GB of memory at a minimum. This might mean that memory upgrades, such as to 32 GB (a happy medium IMO) might be quite cheaper than they are right now.


----------



## JohnG

It feels that a note of certainty has crept into a thread based on a rumour -- no? The difference between 16 GB and 64 is night and day. 32 doesn't really get you there, in my view.

It's not as though sample / synth libraries are getting _less_ demanding.


----------



## Composer 2021

JohnG said:


> It feels that a note of certainty has crept into a thread based on a rumour -- no? The difference between 16 GB and 64 is night and day. 32 doesn't really get you there, in my view.
> 
> It's not as though sample / synth libraries are getting _less_ demanding.


My view is that 32 is okay if you're fine with mixing every track separately after composing.


----------



## givemenoughrope

Anyone using that latest Macbook Air with other sample slaves? I have a stack of Mac Minis that pretty much cover my sample playback needs but I could use an upgrade on the master machine.


----------



## mscp

My MBP of my dreams would be: Something 2x as fast as an i9 9900k+, 64gb ram, 4 ext. ports, 1 sd card slot, MAGSAFE (because removing it was a very stupid thing to do). 2 NVMEs (one smaller for system/OS) and one for data, and enough airflow but portable enough because it will be used on the go, not in the studio. I'll pull my CC right out right away if all of that happens or my current laptop breaks. lol.


----------



## Loïc D

@Phil81 : are you Phil Schiller ?


----------



## mscp

Loïc D said:


> @Phil81 : are you Phil Schiller ?


Haha. No. What did he do? Am I missing a potential scandal or should I wait until Netflix comes up with a limited series? lol.


----------



## mscp

Michael Antrum said:


> I have a 13" M! Mac Pro with 512gb SSD and 8Ggb RAM - I use for my all my work - except for music stuff.
> 
> For anything other than music, it is seriously the best laptop I have ever had. Stupid quick, runs cool, battery life is off the scale, and it is light and compact.
> 
> For many people, the M! Mac with 8/16gb RAM is all they will ever need.
> 
> I keep my music hardware dedicated...


Lucid comment in every aspect. Hats off. I had the M1 mini and sold it because well...let's say I was way over my head to think it would handle my template (and it's not even that big imo), and I am also a sucker for small/compact stuff that can kick ass. I still remember the joy it was to buy my first MD player when it came out to replace my Discman. A part of me died the day I found out it was going to be discontinued. lol.


----------



## Composer 2021

Oh no. Oh no. Oh no. I hope this leaked design is fake.

This might push me over the edge to just order the Intel model. Haha.


----------



## Wunderhorn

I don't know what the fuzz is about. 64GB RAM are not that much. Especially if you can't add more beyond that. Portable or not and considering the money they are going to ask for, making a big deal out of 64GB in 2021 is just wussy.


----------



## Composer 2021

The most I would ever buy from Apple is 32 GB. I'm trying to figure out whether it is cheaper to buy the Intel model and upgrade to 32 GB, or buy the upcoming one, which might _possibly_ have base price cut due to no more Intel chips, and might _possibly _have a RAM price cut if the new chip comes with 16 GB minimum.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

Composer 2021 said:


> The most I would ever buy from Apple is 32 GB. I'm trying to figure out whether it is cheaper to buy the Intel model and upgrade to 32 GB, or buy the upcoming one, which might _possibly_ have base price cut due to no more Intel chips, and might _possibly _have a RAM price cut if the new chip comes with 16 GB minimum.


Never buy more than what’s included with an Intel Mac. The 2020 iMac (for example) comes with 8GB. First thing I did was install third party Ram (128GB) and it was very reasonable.


----------



## Composer 2021

Jeremy Spencer said:


> Never buy more than what’s included with an Intel Mac. The 2020 iMac (for example) comes with 8GB. First thing I did was install third party Ram (128GB) and it was very reasonable.


Oh for sure. The big question is will it be as much of a rip off with the upcoming model?


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

Composer 2021 said:


> Oh for sure. The big question is will it be as much of a rip off with the upcoming model?


Good question indeed. I personally suspect it will be a premium.


----------



## Composer 2021

I think they would be foolish to charge a RAM premium for every single computer. That would persuade a lot of buyers to ditch Apple.


----------



## thesteelydane

I was waiting for this! Imagine an Apple Silicon 64 GB MacBook Pro and a 64 GB Mini as a slave. That would be a stupidly powerful, yet fully portable setup, which is what I need. It will be expensive as f^*%k, but I imagine I’ll get quite a few years out of it and I’m willing to pay the Apple premium for something this powerful and the joy of not having to deal with Windows. It’s a business investment after all for me.


----------



## Composer 2021

Wowwwwww I waited until June 7 for nothing. Lol. So should I just get the i7 Mac Mini model now?


----------



## artomatic

Disappointed that it didn't drop today as well.
But I'll wait for it. I'm assuming they'll come out this Fall.
Gives me more time to budget anyway.


----------



## Composer 2021

artomatic said:


> I'm assuming they'll come out this Fall.


Oh boy, here we go again.


----------



## mscp

thesteelydane said:


> I was waiting for this! Imagine an Apple Silicon 64 GB MacBook Pro and a 64 GB Mini as a slave. That would be a stupidly powerful, yet fully portable setup, which is what I need. It will be expensive as f^*%k, but I imagine I’ll get quite a few years out of it and I’m willing to pay the Apple premium for something this powerful and the joy of not having to deal with Windows. It’s a business investment after all for me.


For as long as it is stupidly powerful and portable, I really don't mind paying for it either. Also highly awaiting.


----------



## Vik

artomatic said:


> I'm assuming they'll come out this Fall.


For real work with orchestral libraries, more memory is of course important, but being able to work without Rosetta also seems to be rather essential. Even if a 64 gb version of the iMac would have been announced today, those of us who use sample players which only exist in Intel versions could be up for a negative surprise until Kontakt etc. become Apple Silicon compatible. In this micro-poll from April, only two have responded so far, the third person answered 'more', but I think s/he meant 'Other'. I interpret that as almost no-one have been able to with successfully with more than 10-20 tracks with the current M1s.

Has anything been stated by NI about when Kontakt will run natively on the new Macs?


----------



## Composer 2021

How much do you think I could trade in an i7 2018 model in for the M1X model when it comes out?


----------



## rnb_2

Composer 2021 said:


> How much do you think I could trade in an i7 2018 model in for the M1X model when it comes out?


My 2018 i7 16GB/256GB mini can be traded in for $470 today.


----------



## Composer 2021

rnb_2 said:


> My 2018 i7 16GB/256GB mini can be traded in for $470 today.


Oof, that isn't much.


----------



## rnb_2

Composer 2021 said:


> Oof, that isn't much.


I've also requested a quote from OWC to compare.


----------



## JohnG

I was at the Apple Store a couple of hours ago (June 8th) and the guy helping us said Apple are announcing a new computer this coming weekend -- which is weird. I don't know whether he was mistaken or not.


----------



## rnb_2

JohnG said:


> I was at the Apple Store a couple of hours ago (June 8th) and the guy helping us said Apple are announcing a new computer this coming weekend -- which is weird. I don't know whether he was mistaken or not.


I would be shocked if this happened, but we do live in strange times, so I won't dismiss it out of hand. If it does happen, I'll be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## Justin L. Franks

Composer 2021 said:


> Oof, that isn't much.


Yeah, for that little, you'd be better off just keeping it.


----------



## Justin L. Franks

Apple would give me just $1070 for my 2019 iMac (i9-9900K, Radeon Vega 48, 512GB SSD).


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

rnb_2 said:


> My 2018 i7 16GB/256GB mini can be traded in for $470 today.


The trade in value of my 2009 12-core from Apple: they will dispose of it free.

Yet it would sell on ebay for $1000.

Don't trade a computer in to Apple unless you're so rich that money doesn't mean anything to you!


----------



## jcrosby

JohnG said:


> I was at the Apple Store a couple of hours ago (June 8th) and the guy helping us said Apple are announcing a new computer this coming weekend -- which is weird. I don't know whether he was mistaken or not.


WWDC is scheduled through Friday so it's totally possible.... Fingers crossed 🤞


----------



## Soundbed

Interesting thread. I currently “get by” with 32GB. 😁 (It’s interesting seeing folks require 64Gb or more. I thought it was a workflow choice... at least when we can use VEP and “slave” machines, when that makes economical sense.)

In a strange twist I might even keep my i9 MBP and use it as as slave to an M1X mini with minimal ram as the main machine. Because I’m rarely editing more than 5-10 tracks “at a time” — in the sense that I generally don’t need to keep more than that amount MIDI-editable at any given time.


----------



## Vik

Soundbed said:


> Interesting thread. I currently “get by” with 32GB. 😁 (It’s interesting seeing folks require 64Gb or more. I thought it was a workflow choice... at least when we can use VEP and “slave” machines, when that makes economical sense.)


IMO 64 gb makes more sense as a minimum to me, both because it makes a difference (my Mac is nicer with me when there's some available RAM), but also: after having spent so much money on a computer and sample libraries, saving money on RAM feels kind of wrong to me... the RAM prices have gone down a lot, and an extra 32gb represents, after all (unless one is buying the RAM from Apple), a very small percentage of the whole package. Taking a few hours off this forum for some real, paid work pays that bill.


----------



## Soundbed

Vik said:


> IMO 64 gb makes more sense as a minimum to me, both because it makes a difference (my Mac is nicer with me when there's some available RAM), but also: after having spent so much money on a computer and sample libraries, saving money on RAM feels kind of wrong to me... the RAM prices have gone down a lot, and an extra 32gb represents, after all (unless one is buying the RAM from Apple), a very small percentage of the whole package. Taking a few hours off this forum for some real, paid work pays that bill.


Fair point when you can buy RAM from another vendor. In the context of this thread, you’ll be buying the RAM from Apple.


----------



## rnb_2

Soundbed said:


> Fair point when you can buy RAM from another vendor. In the context of this thread, you’ll be buying the RAM from Apple.


It could be interesting to watch this play out, as it wouldn't be surprising if RAM upgrades for most Apple Silicon Macs are very expensive compared to what people are used to paying for 3rd party RAM (of course, there have only been three models with user-expandable RAM for a few years now). Will the overall system performance be high enough to encourage new workflows if RAM expansion to current levels is either not possible or extremely expensive?

The next round of chips - 14- and 16-inch MacBook Pros, possibly a higher-end iMac and Mac mini - is rumored to be 8 performance cores, which means it should benchmark around the speed of a 16-Core 2019 Mac Pro. However, there are also rumors of future 20- and 40-core configurations (the latter possibly just two of the former), which would see performance far beyond anything currently available in the Mac market. There are also rumors of Apple Silicon Mac Pros using possibly three different types of RAM - built-in HBM2 and LPDDR5, plus user-expandable modules - so there may be some possibility to expand RAM in future Mac Pros.


----------



## InLight-Tone

Just built an 8 core i7 10700 with 64 GB Ram based on Open Core to tide me over until the new Macs drop. Probably a fraction of the cost of them as well. Happy with my decision...


----------



## newbreednet

We might even eventually look at "RAM" very differently.

Could it be that future Apple Silicon SOC's will simply treat "RAM" as an extension of what we now call "cache"? Instead of worrying about how much RAM we need, the concern shifts to how much of the super-fast local storage we have. Maybe we won't get user-upgradeable RAM slots, but instead get user-upgradeable NVMe slots...

As an example for sample-based composers: EW OPUS has settings for users with PCIe NVMe storage. Flip the switch and it will stream from the drive(s) since they're fast enough to not need to fill up RAM before playback. 

The relatively-insane IPC speeds of M1 (and beyond) coupled with ever-increasing NVMe speed might mean that at some point we will never have to think about RAM amounts ever again...


----------



## mscp

newbreednet said:


> We might even eventually look at "RAM" very differently.
> 
> Could it be that future Apple Silicon SOC's will simply treat "RAM" as an extension of what we now call "cache"? Instead of worrying about how much RAM we need, the concern shifts to how much of the super-fast local storage we have. Maybe we won't get user-upgradeable RAM slots, but instead get user-upgradeable NVMe slots...


It's the plan for the near-ish future yes - once NVMEs reach "ridiculously high" speeds. It's unrelated to Apple...the industry as a whole is slowly shifting towards it.



newbreednet said:


> As an example for sample-based composers: EW OPUS has settings for users with PCIe NVMe storage. Flip the switch and it will stream from the drive(s) since they're fast enough to not need to fill up RAM before playback.


In theory, setting a lower cache/pre-load buffer works. In practice...not so much. Your voice count is still directly dependent on how efficient/fast your CPU is and you'll only going to get "so much" out of a large template (especially at low CoreAudio/ASIO buffer sizes).



newbreednet said:


> The relatively-insane IPC speeds of M1 (and beyond) coupled with ever-increasing NVMe speed might mean that at some point we will never have to think about RAM amounts ever again...


It will take a while though. It's not something that we will see for the next few years. A decade? most likely.


----------



## Soundbed

Phil81 said:


> It's the plan for the near-ish future yes - once NVMEs reach "ridiculously high" speeds. It's unrelated to Apple...the industry as a whole is slowly shifting towards it.
> 
> 
> In theory, setting a lower cache/pre-load buffer works. In practice...not so much. Your voice count is still directly dependent on how efficient/fast your CPU is and you'll only going to get "so much" out of a large template (especially at low CoreAudio/ASIO buffer sizes).
> 
> 
> It will take a while though. It's not something that we will see for the next few years. A decade? most likely.


Yeah it may have been discussed in a different thread but currently the speed of nvme is still “much” slower than RAM if I understood the numbers correctly.


----------



## GtrString

I don't know, a top spec'ed Mac mini is not much less than an iMac is it? Can it compete with the mf 128gb pc I'm looking at getting? The ram has got to be possible to upgrade yourself, and so has the Hdd. If not, it's a dealbreaker for me, and I would compare a good spec'ed pc with the iMac (and probably go with the pc at this time).


----------



## mscp

Soundbed said:


> but currently the speed of nvme is still “much” slower than RAM if I understood the numbers correctly.


That's why I said it may be a thing in a decade. Certainly not now. Manufacturers have been pushing it for the last few years already, but it may take 8-10 years. Until then, RAM will still be essential as the fastest consumer grade NVME out there is something around 8000MB/S. Intel boards now have at least one M.2 Gen 4 slot that talks to the CPU directly. Exciting times ahead.


----------



## Soundbed

Phil81 said:


> That's why I said it may be a thing in a decade. Certainly not now. Manufacturers have been pushing it for the last few years already, but it may take 8-10 years. Until then, RAM will still be essential as the fastest consumer grade NVME out there is something around 8000MB/S.


Yep I wasn’t trying to contradict you, although in that number of years the concepts around RAM and cache and how software uses them might be a little different too, right?


----------



## mscp

Soundbed said:


> Yep I wasn’t trying to contradict you, although in that number of years the concepts around RAM and cache and how software uses them might be a little different too, right?


I edited my previous post...hehe. have a look.


----------



## mscp

Soundbed said:


> although in that number of years the concepts around RAM and cache and how software uses them might be a little different too, right?


It might....but something tells me it won't.


----------



## newbreednet

Phil81 said:


> It's the plan for the near-ish future yes - once NVMEs reach "ridiculously high" speeds. It's unrelated to Apple...the industry as a whole is slowly shifting towards it.
> 
> 
> In theory, setting a lower cache/pre-load buffer works. In practice...not so much. Your voice count is still directly dependent on how efficient/fast your CPU is and you'll only going to get "so much" out of a large template (especially at low CoreAudio/ASIO buffer sizes).
> 
> 
> It will take a while though. It's not something that we will see for the next few years. A decade? most likely.


Nah not 10. Maybe 5 tops. My OPUS example is just illustrating where things are at NOW, even in the Intel age. 



Soundbed said:


> Yeah it may have been discussed in a different thread but currently the speed of nvme is still “much” slower than RAM if I understood the numbers correctly.


gen4 NVMe is about as fast as DDR2! Obviously with more latency. But I think increased IPC in future Apple Silicons can negate that somewhat.

I really think we might have some work to do letting go of the idea of RAM when we've all been obsessed with it for 20+ years! :D


----------



## newbreednet

Phil81 said:


> It might....but something tells me it won't.


why not? It has already started.


----------



## mscp

newbreednet said:


> why not? It has already started.


Because they need to sell. They will not give you great stuff until they have milked every little 'tit' from the 


newbreednet said:


> Nah not 10. Maybe 5 tops. My OPUS example is just illustrating where things are at NOW, even in the Intel age.


What OPUS does is simply reduce the load buffer. It's not new tech.



newbreednet said:


> gen4 NVMe is about as fast as DDR2! Obviously with more latency. But I think increased IPC in future Apple Silicons can negate that somewhat.


Intel has already allowed NVMEs to directly speak to the CPU but it's still in its infancy. You can't even buy a board with more than one M.2_CPU slot these days. They will milk that for a decade I'm sure.



newbreednet said:


> I really think we might have some work to do letting go of the idea of RAM when we've all been obsessed with it for 20+ years! :D


Not sure I follow this last bit.


----------



## newbreednet

Phil81 said:


> Because they need to sell. They will not give you great stuff until they have milked every little 'tit' from the
> 
> What OPUS does is simply reduce the load buffer. It's not new tech.
> 
> 
> Intel has already allowed NVMEs to directly speak to the CPU but it's still in its infancy. You can't even buy a board with more than one M.2_CPU slot these days. They will milk that for a decade I'm sure.


I have 3 NVMe's plugged directly into my X399 motherboard... and more PCI lanes to burn with a 16x (4 drive) expansion card.... but maybe I don't know enough about direct-to-chipset vs direct-to-CPU NVMe...


----------



## newbreednet

Phil81 said:


> Not sure I follow this last bit.


If (when) local storage becomes fast enough to effectively treat as a huge pool of RAM, does the amount of actual RAM really matter? I saved like a maniac to get a machine with 128Gb RAM (bought 2nd hand and then hackintoshed!) because when I first started getting into orchestral samples I looked at my 16Gb MBP and said "sorry son, I don't think you can really do this job". But already I sense a shift that now that I've won the RAM game, it's actually not even going to matter soon! The current M1's aren't perfect sample machines yet, but think about what M2 or M3 will be...


----------



## mscp

newbreednet said:


> I have 3 NVMe's plugged directly into my X399 motherboard... and more PCI lanes to burn with a 16x (4 drive) expansion card.... but maybe I don't know enough about direct-to-chipset vs direct-to-CPU NVMe...


PCI-e lanes must be able to make use of the new architecture in order for the NVMEs I/O to work like what we've been talking about. All the majors (ie. Intel/AMD/Apple) are already working on it.



newbreednet said:


> If (when) local storage becomes fast enough to effectively treat as a huge pool of RAM, does the amount of actual RAM really matter?


Direct data stream (or whatever they will call it officially) is still a relatively new concept, so I wouldn't be able to confidently say yes, but in my honestly opinion is not, it doesn't matter.



newbreednet said:


> I saved like a maniac to get a machine with 128Gb RAM (bought 2nd hand and then hackintoshed!) because when I first started getting into orchestral samples I looked at my 16Gb MBP and said "sorry son, I don't think you can really do this job".


Not sure why you wouldn't be able to do your job. Even having a template is more of a comfort thing rather than necessity to many. I've seen people deliver projects for drama series on a 8gb ram 512gb ssd laptop...

So, whoever "brought you down" by saying more RAM is *NEEDED* is oh so wrong. There are so many features these days to cope with shortage of RAM, that splurging for insane amounts is more of a "want" type of purchase rather than "must have".



newbreednet said:


> But already I sense a shift that now that I've won the RAM game, it's actually not even going to matter soon! The current M1's aren't perfect sample machines yet, but think about what M2 or M3 will be...


Whatever Apple will push, soon enough others will follow (or vice-versa).


----------



## Dewdman42

128gb of ram is probably overkill, I basically never get much past 64gb myself... but I think 16gb is simply not enough for orch work. 64 is the sweet spot. Anything above that would be reserved for some ginormous template building perhaps VePro servers, etc.


----------



## mscp

Dewdman42 said:


> 128gb of ram is probably overkill, I basically never get much past 64gb myself... but I think 16gb is simply not enough for orch work. 64 is the sweet spot. Anything above that would be reserved for some ginormous template building perhaps VePro servers, etc.


It's really a question of choice/workflow.


----------



## newbreednet

Phil81 said:


> So, whoever "brought you down" by saying more RAM is *NEEDED* is oh so wrong. There are so many features these days to cope with shortage of RAM, that splurging for insane amounts is more of a "want" type of purchase rather than "must have".


VI-Control made me do it  I guess I spent too long (and invested too much belief) in the BBCSO-type threads where people would lament "boo hoo my 16GB MBP cries when I try to load more than 6 instances with 3 mic positions". And I agree, stellar work will have been done with limited resources. I just wanted to never ever have to worry about RAM again lol


Dewdman42 said:


> 128gb of ram is probably overkill, I basically never get much past 64gb myself... but I think 16gb is simply not enough for orch work. 64 is the sweet spot. Anything above that would be reserved for some ginormous template building perhaps VePro servers, etc.


I think you're right, in the x86 paradigm, 64Gb is probably the good place. I haven't even gone past 64Gb in Activity Monitor yet. But I'd bought into the idea that there was no such thing as too much RAM. Oh and I got too envious of Neil Parfitt's 384Gb RAM 2019 Mac Pro videos, back when I knew too little about how to actually manage a sample library, ha.


----------



## Dewdman42

In my case I was actually able to upgrade my whole CPU tray to a faster Cpu and from 64gb to 128gb for practically break even cost after I sold old stuff on Ebay, etc..so it was no brainer. I don't think I would pay the ridiculous high price for a 2019 MP to have so much RAM that mostly won't be used. You really gotta know you need it before spending that much money. Filling a 5,1 with RAM that is not even the latest ram tech....is not that expensive..so why not. I did... But as I said..in retrospect...I coulda just as easily stuck with 64gb and never would have noticed a difference.

The 128 has some breathing room, for along time, LogicPro was terrible about freeing memory when you disable instruments, etc. even if you purged the ram in Kontakt, LogicPro would not free it...for example. So having more ram just gives more breathing room to handle situations like that.... but 64gb is actually plenty for 99% of us in my opinion.


----------



## mscp

newbreednet said:


> VI-Control made me do it  I guess I spent too long (and invested too much belief) in the BBCSO-type threads where people would lament "boo hoo my 16GB MBP cries when I try to load more than 6 instances with 3 mic positions". And I agree, stellar work will have been done with limited resources. I just wanted to never ever have to worry about RAM again lol


I'm not sure if you're just starting out, but if your schedule is flexible...work with some of your DAW's features (commit to audio/track freeze/track presets/etc...). See how you like any of them. When things get a little more complicated and you feel that time is becoming scarce, splurge for more RAM.


newbreednet said:


> I think you're right, in the x86 paradigm, 64Gb is probably the good place. I haven't even gone past 64Gb in Activity Monitor yet. But I'd bought into the idea that there was no such thing as too much RAM. Oh and I got too envious of Neil Parfitt's 384Gb RAM 2019 Mac Pro videos, back when I knew too little about how to actually manage a sample library, ha.


Oh small world. I know him. He's a brilliant composer, and person.


----------



## newbreednet

Phil81 said:


> I'm not sure if you're just starting out, but if your schedule is flexible...work with some of your DAW's features (commit to audio/track freeze/track presets/etc...). See how you like any of them. When things get a little more complicated and you feel that time is becoming scarce, splurge for more RAM.


I already did the splurging, I have 128Gb RAM! I also have the shame of never filling it, haha. In hindsight I realise that plenty can be done with freezing, purging etc (and NVME's!) but hey ho, it was a "cheap" way of getting 2019 Mac Pro-levels of potential...


Phil81 said:


> Oh small world. I know him. He's a brilliant composer, and person.


I loved his series of videos around his rackmount MP. And his noisy cat  I came out of his videos with such gearlust....


----------



## mscp

newbreednet said:


> I already did the splurging, I have 128Gb RAM! I also have the shame of never filling it, haha. In hindsight I realise that plenty can be done with freezing, purging etc (and NVME's!) but hey ho, it was a "cheap" way of getting 2019 Mac Pro-levels of potential...



If the gear you're using works well, brilliant! I love both my PCs/Macs, but honestly prefer my PCs (so far). Can't wait to see what Apple is cooking behind the scenes though.



newbreednet said:


> I loved his series of videos around his rackmount MP. And his noisy cat  I came out of his videos with such gearlust....


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

rnb_2 said:


> it wouldn't be surprising if RAM upgrades for most Apple Silicon Macs are very expensive compared to what people are used to paying for 3rd party RAM


The memory is on the chip, so I doubt you can upgrade the RAM - you have to buy the machine with a chip that has it on already.

As far as I know, anyway.


----------



## Dewdman42

for that reason I expect large ram ARM Macs to be ridiculously priced. There will be zero competitive sellers for RAM on Macs in the future.


----------



## rnb_2

Nick Batzdorf said:


> The memory is on the chip, so I doubt you can upgrade the RAM - you have to buy the machine with a chip that has it on already.
> 
> As far as I know, anyway.


It's not actually *on* the chip, but on package with the M1, and probably the M1X. We will almost certainly lose user-expandable RAM in the bigger iMac and future Mac minis.



rnb_2 said:


> However, there are also rumors of future 20- and 40-core configurations (the latter possibly just two of the former), which would see performance far beyond anything currently available in the Mac market. There are also rumors of Apple Silicon Mac Pros using possibly three different types of RAM - built-in HBM2 and LPDDR5, plus user-expandable modules - so there may be some possibility to expand RAM in future Mac Pros.


This is a rumor that is out there concerning future Mac Pros, giving at least some possibility of user-expandable RAM, the feeling being that Apple will want to maintain RAM expandability to match or exceed current specs for customers that need it, which will not be possible with all RAM being on package. In this case, the user-expandable RAM supplements faster, more exotic memory that is possibly on-package as with the M1.


----------



## Jack Weaver

So Bitwig4 is M1 native now. Hoping for more DAWs to follow suit. 
(yes I know, Logic...)

.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

rnb_2 said:


> It's not actually *on* the chip, but on package with the M1, and probably the M1X


Unified memory. I haven't broken open a computer to look at it, but it's almost certainly surface-mounted onto the same green board.

Am I using the right words now?


----------



## mscp

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Unified memory. I haven't broken open a computer to look at it, but it's almost certainly surface-mounted onto the same green board.
> 
> Am I using the right words now?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Will I ever get things right?!


----------



## mscp

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Will I ever get things right?


When those things become more relevant to us, you will in no time. 😊


----------



## rnb_2

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Unified memory. I haven't broken open a computer to look at it, but it's almost certainly surface-mounted onto the same green board.
> 
> Am I using the right words now?


Sorry, I know that was pedantic - just wanted to be clear that it's not a case of the RAM being on the same physical piece of silicon as the SOC, so there is a bit more flexibility in how it's actually configured. Where the M1 has only the on-package RAM, the rumor is that the Mac Pro may have something a bit more complex, where the on-package RAM is closer to a very large cache, with the possibility of user-upgradable RAM feeding (possibly multiple levels of) off-chip, but still very fast, memory.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Phil81 said:


> When those things become more relevant to us, you will in no time. 😊


That day is approaching very quickly!


----------



## mscp

Nick Batzdorf said:


> That day is approaching very quickly!


I hope so.


----------



## michalioz

At the moment I'm working on a 2017 Macbook Pro with 8GB RAM and as you understand I need a new computer as a lot of my projects are half-baked since I can't load more instruments.

It was great to see the new M1 iMacs but it was also a disappointment that they don't offer more than 16GB as I'd like to get 64GB this time.

Do you think buying the intel 27" iMac is worth it today? Or waiting for the M1s might be wiser?


----------



## Vik

michalioz said:


> At the moment I'm working on a 2017 Macbook Pro with 8GB RAM and as you understand I need a new computer as a lot of my projects are half-baked since I can't load more instruments.
> 
> It was great to see the new M1 iMacs but it was also a disappointment that they don't offer more than 16GB as I'd like to get 64GB this time.
> 
> Do you think buying the intel 27" iMac is worth it today? Or waiting for the M1s might be wiser?


My impression is that for now, the fastest Intel iMacs will be the best choice for a while. Only two DAWs have been rewritten for Apple Silicon, and AFAIK none of the standalone sample players are M1 native yet.
Maybe Apple will announce a new iMac soon, but even then: how will it handle sample players like Kontakt and Sine under Rosetta?


----------



## rnb_2

michalioz said:


> At the moment I'm working on a 2017 Macbook Pro with 8GB RAM and as you understand I need a new computer as a lot of my projects are half-baked since I can't load more instruments.
> 
> It was great to see the new M1 iMacs but it was also a disappointment that they don't offer more than 16GB as I'd like to get 64GB this time.
> 
> Do you think buying the intel 27" iMac is worth it today? Or waiting for the M1s might be wiser?


Have you considered an Intel Mac mini? Might be a good compromise position until things shake out a bit more. Go with the i5 with 512GB storage (members here are using the i5 with no issues), put in 32-64GB of RAM, add a 2k or 4k display, and you're set for a year or two.


----------



## michalioz

rnb_2 said:


> Have you considered an Intel Mac mini? Might be a good compromise position until things shake out a bit more. Go with the i5 with 512GB storage (members here are using the i5 with no issues), put in 32-64GB of RAM, add a 2k or 4k display, and you're set for a year or two.


Yes definitely. In fact I've been thinking about getting either iMac or the Mac mini, or alternatively wait for the M1s. The equivalent Mac mini is like £900 cheaper (or £600 cheaper if you add a monitor) and I am not entirely sure if this suffices for having an LG/Samsung monitor instead.


----------



## Composer 2021

My finger is itching to buy the Mac Mini. I just need a computer to last at least a year and I'm tired of waiting with my potato laptop. I know I sound like broken record at this point, but I want to make the right decision. I know the Mini has a huge disadvantage in the graphics department. You mentioned the i5 being OK but everyone says to get the i7. Some YouTubers tested the i5 vs i7 and found almost no difference in video editing, and IDK how many more tracks you could handle in Logic because it doesn't seem like anyone tested it. Is an i7 _really _worth an extra $200?

In my case of use, I plan convert MIDI tracks to audio and mix each track separately for mic positions. That should not be too hard on the system.


----------



## rnb_2

I'd say that the shorter the intended service life, the less you should spend - if you see this purchase as a simple "let me do (x) for the next (y) months", find the thing that can do that for the lowest outlay. As an owner of the i7 mini, I wouldn't be buying it now unless I got a killer deal - beyond the RAM limitation, the M1 is just a better computer right now, so if the ability to add more RAM is critical, I'd buy the i5, use the savings toward the RAM upgrade, and keep the overall outlay down.

You can get the i5 8GB/512GB for $1039 from Adorama if you use the link and code from AppleInsider, which is $210 less than the best i7 deal. Use it for a year, then sell/trade-in/repurpose it.


----------



## Composer 2021

Someone mentioned that the i7 option is significantly more stable for Logic because it has hyperthreading, while the 8th gen i5 in the default configuration does not.


----------



## rnb_2

Composer 2021 said:


> Someone mentioned that the i7 option is significantly more stable for Logic because it has hyperthreading, while the 8th gen i5 in the default configuration does not.


While it's true that the i5 doesn't have hyperthreading (I don't think desktop i5s got it until 10th gen), instability in Logic is not something I've heard about, and I'm not sure why hyperthreading would matter for stability.

@wayne_rowley - do you use Logic, and have you experienced instability with your setup?


----------



## Composer 2021

They hay have been referring to stability in DAWs in general, though I don't see how it would hurt Logic.


----------



## wayne_rowley

rnb_2 said:


> While it's true that the i5 doesn't have hyperthreading (I don't think desktop i5s got it until 10th gen), instability in Logic is not something I've heard about, and I'm not sure why hyperthreading would matter for stability.
> 
> @wayne_rowley - do you use Logic, and have you experienced instability with your setup?


Not at all. Logic has been very stable for me, both playback and recording. I've had some single-core spikes with some heavier libraries (mainly Spitfire Solo Strings Performance patches) but I would imagine that would also be an issue with the i7. My understanding is that the i7 gives an extra 20% multi-core performance, which might benefit some use cases. From my thinking, if I'm constantly hitting 80%+ in my projects, I probably want more than an extra 20%.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

JohnG said:


> I was at the Apple Store a couple of hours ago (June 8th) and the guy helping us said Apple are announcing a new computer this coming weekend -- which is weird. I don't know whether he was mistaken or not.


Apparently he was!

I wonder whether the chip shortage has something to do with it. We bought a new iMac for my wife over a month ago, and it won't be here until sometime in July - presumably for that reason.


----------



## rnb_2

Metadata for M1x and MacBook Pro was found in the WWDC videos, so at least at some point, they were hoping to announce them. I have a feeling that the component shortages that are slowing iMac delivery also precluded them having anything like required stock in hand to announce the laptops.

We may see a very oddly-timed summer event for Apple, which usually goes quiet during the post-WWDC beta cycle, depending on when they are able to get some stock built up. Or, they might do something similar to last year, where there were multiple late summer/early fall events for different lines.


----------



## Vik

rnb_2 said:


> Metadata for M1x and MacBook Pro was found in the WWDC videos


Please elaborate?


----------



## rnb_2

Vik said:


> Please elaborate?


From what I heard on a podcast ("Upgrade", with former Macworld Editor Jason Snell, so reputable), the Youtube version of the WWDC keynote had a number of keyword tags, and those were among them.

Actually, here is a story that spells it out - it was actually "m1x" and "M1X MacBook Pro".


----------



## lpr

Would you go with 16GB or 32GB with the new Mac Mini M1X? I'm thinking the latter but I'm curious what others have concluded. Anyone have an idea how much it will be? I hope not more than $1500.


----------



## rnb_2

lpr said:


> Would you go with 16GB or 32GB with the new Mac Mini M1X? I'm thinking the latter but I'm curious what others have concluded. Anyone have an idea how much it will be? I hope not more than $1500.


RAM is definitely the limitation with the M1, so I'd go with as much as possible within what your budget will bear (you almost certainly won't be able to add more on anything short of a Mac Pro, though). The M1X is rumored to be 8 performance cores, which means it should benchmark in the neighborhood of the 16-core Mac Pro, so it should be worth investing in on the RAM side. If it comes down to it, forego some internal storage in favor of RAM - samples from external SSDs work fine.


----------



## Soundbed

rnb_2 said:


> RAM is definitely the limitation with the M1, so I'd go with as much as possible within what your budget will bear (you almost certainly won't be able to add more on anything short of a Mac Pro, though). The M1X is rumored to be 8 performance cores, which means it should benchmark in the neighborhood of the 16-core Mac Pro, so it should be worth investing in on the RAM side. If it comes down to it, forego some internal storage in favor of RAM - samples from external SSDs work fine.


Do you have a good test of RAM limitations that “make sense” for the M1 16GB? I happened to buy one (I’ll return it in a week). It makes more sense to purge RAM in Kontakt and keep on plugging, converting tracks to audio as often as needed. 16GB of RAM leaves plenty free for writing “the next part” when your CPU and disks are super speedy. I find myself wondering, “did I really need everything in RAM”?

when it’s so quick to ‘freeze’ or commit or bounce … navigating through a project on a machine with less RAM but fast drives and a fast CPU is making me reconsider certain workflows…


----------



## mscp

Soundbed said:


> when it’s so quick to ‘freeze’ or commit or bounce … navigating through a project on a machine with less RAM but fast drives and a fast CPU is making me reconsider certain workflows…


Great workflow if you work with a few tracks and have 0 revisions to go through.


----------



## givemenoughrope

Phil81 said:


> Great workflow if you work with a few tracks and have 0 revisions to go through.


Ok, I've always heard this complaint (about the need to stay in MIDI until or even after approval) and never understood it really. It takes seconds to render audio files and the only other extra step I can think of (provided there wasn't a lot of or very specific edits in audio) is saving Kontakt multis or plugin chains as presets. If you have to revise a cue going back to a midi is like several clicks away. (I'm still of the mind, which is perhaps slightly paranoid, that calling up a session that is all midi will occasionally not load up or playback the same as before in some way.)

Maybe this for a different thread..

edit-I should say I'm only considering one of these machines as a master with sample slaves still doing most of the heavy sample lifting.


----------



## Soundbed

Phil81 said:


> Great workflow if you work with a few tracks and have 0 revisions to go through.


Yes.
True.
And.
Working with audio is an excellent workflow on a machine like this.

IF you’re not changing tempo and inserting sections, where unfreezing and refreezing all the audio tracks might actually take more than a couple seconds.


----------



## gsilbers

Not sure if it was mentioned but new m1 based macs will not let you Start from externa disk when the internal fails 





__





An M1 Mac Can’t Boot from an External Drive If Its Internal Drive Is Dead - TidBITS


A little-noticed fact about M1-based Macs has started to get some attention. If the Mac’s internal drive is dead or fully erased, you can’t boot from an otherwise valid external drive. Why would Apple make that choice? Security, security, security.




tidbits.com


----------



## rnb_2

gsilbers said:


> Not sure if it was mentioned but new m1 based macs will not let you Start from externa disk when the internal fails
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An M1 Mac Can’t Boot from an External Drive If Its Internal Drive Is Dead - TidBITS
> 
> 
> A little-noticed fact about M1-based Macs has started to get some attention. If the Mac’s internal drive is dead or fully erased, you can’t boot from an otherwise valid external drive. Why would Apple make that choice? Security, security, security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tidbits.com


Yeah, one of the sad side-effects of the march of time. Being able to boot from a nightly clone drive was one of the things I loved about the Mac when I switched in 2006, but Apple was later to the stringent security game than Microsoft (Windows was always a huge target with multiple entry points), and they've made up for it by really locking things down at the hardware level.

When I got my original M1 Mac mini, I tried installing everything from scratch before finding out that Kontakt actually worked if it was already installed, but that Native Access was completely non-functional. So, I decided to nuke the internal and start over from scratch (in order to restore from an Intel backup), only to find that wasn't remotely the same as on an Intel Mac - without a system drive that I had the rights to, there was no way to boot. I had to hook it up to an Intel Mac and do the equivalent of a complete device restore with the Intel as the intermediary to put the OS back onto the internal drive.

On the other hand, it's now trivially easy to reinstall a fresh copy of the OS with no danger to user data (on an Intel or M1 Mac), either from the recovery partition or over the internet, which somewhat makes up for the loss of external boot capability.


----------



## InLight-Tone

Dewdman42 said:


> 128gb of ram is probably overkill, I basically never get much past 64gb myself... but I think 16gb is simply not enough for orch work. 64 is the sweet spot. Anything above that would be reserved for some ginormous template building perhaps VePro servers, etc.


Completely agree, especially if loading as you go and/or running disabled templates. And I'm the guy with Firefox open with VI Control, Email, 10 Finder Tabs, 6 Pdf's etc., etc.


----------



## Dewdman42

I actually just removed some of the ram from mine, back down to 96gb. The 5,1 slows down ram when you use all 128gb's..


----------

