Confused about RAM and M1's

[moogboy100]

Originally Posted by Sparky1

Hi there...


Trying to understand how the new Apple M1's can perform so well with limited RAM?


I always thought that the more RAM you had - the better the PT system would run... yet people are thinking the new M1's will outperform Intel systems with tons of RAM...


Thanks,


Sparky

https://www.macworld.com/article/359...sed-to-be.html

We can kind of stop caring about RAM. In M1 world, RAM is now part of the M1 chip. The M1 chip uses the RAM, the GPU and anything else inside it that can store data, not to mention using the super fast NVME SSD as a backup. In this new unified world, RAM size is becoming less relevant. The computer will find ways to satisfy its memory needs, from caching, to compressing to virtual disk.

A non scientific formula you can kind of use is think of the M1 chips RAM as being 2x that of an Intel. So the M1 Mac mini with 16GB RAM can kind of handle the same pressure as an Intel with 32GB of RAM.

By the time Pro Tools will be Native on the M1, there will be far more powerful M1 chips available.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by huzzam

Of course, every sampler / VI only loads & keeps in memory the samples it's actually using. If you have a 30 gb Kontakt library, and load a piano patch that uses two octaves of C major at mezzoforte volume, it's not going to use anywhere near 30gb of ram. It won't even keep all the piano samples in memory, just the relevant ones.

That would make it impossible to use live (tracking). Not knowing what you are going to start playing kind of forces loading something to memory. Not necessarily every articulation but certainly every note. Just think about it for a second.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LDS]

In an era of fast SSDs I would have thought Kontakt's DFD and sample purging, or Vienna Synchron's direct streaming would have been a pretty common method to avoid loading everything into RAM.

[Obsidian Dragon]

Originally Posted by LDS

In an era of fast SSDs I would have thought Kontakt's DFD and sample purging, or Vienna Synchron's direct streaming would have been a pretty common method to avoid loading everything into RAM.

That is what I was implying. With SSDs, samples for VIs can be streamed as needed for most cases. This works for my type of use cases. I can see that if someone was doing an orchestral piece, they might have too much sample-based VI's to be able to stream all of them due to the maximum bandwidth an SSD can provide. Loading into RAM allows it to be brought in faster but then there is a limit to the size of RAM available.

As for the earlier comment about the M1's efficiency with RAM, that will improve system use of RAM (speed) but not increase the capacity (size) of what is stored in RAM. Again, think of a RAM disk as an analogy.

[JFreak]

You would think software works in an intelligent way, but the reality is it just works (or not) so long as you are paying for it.

Synthogy that I mentioned is perhaps best example of good VI plugin, it was done early enough when storage transfer speed was limiting factor. Later plugins did not have that restriction so most are coded lazy.

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by moogboy100

https://www.macworld.com/article/359...sed-to-be.html

We can kind of stop caring about RAM. In M1 world, RAM is now part of the M1 chip. The M1 chip uses the RAM, the GPU and anything else inside it that can store data, not to mention using the super fast NVME SSD as a backup. In this new unified world, RAM size is becoming less relevant. The computer will find ways to satisfy its memory needs, from caching, to compressing to virtual disk.

No you cannot "stop caring about RAM". That is crazy talk.

Unified memory has been around for decades. Mac memory compression has been around for something like a decade. Fast NVMe has been around for a good part of a decade. Slight faster memory on chip carrier is nice. But none of these let you ignore RAM needs. Pro Tools is a demanding application for memory. If you need that memory you need that memory.

[Obsidian Dragon]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

No you cannot "stop caring about RAM". That is crazy talk.

Unified memory has been around for decades. Mac memory compression has been around for something like a decade. Fast NVMe has been around for a good part of a decade. Slight faster memory on chip carrier is nice. But none of these let you ignore RAM needs. Pro Tools is a demanding application for memory. If you need that memory you need that memory.

Agreed. While unified memory can get data to and from the processor faster, it does not mean a sample-based VI will use less space to hold it in RAM. Look folks, the M1 is fast when it comes to processing and moving data to and from its RAM, but there is no magic that can make that RAM hold more data than space is available.

[Southsidemusic]

Originally Posted by Obsidian Dragon

Agreed. While unified memory can get data to and from the processor faster, it does not mean a sample-based VI will use less space to hold it in RAM. Look folks, the M1 is fast when it comes to processing and moving data to and from its RAM, but there is no magic that can make that RAM hold more data than space is available.

Thank you. Been trying to tell people this in the other M1 thread as 16GB will NOT be equivalent to 32GB which is again Total BS to spread as some think!

8GB is ALWAYS gonna be 8GB and a 8GB mini M1 and Macbook M1 16GB we tested were great BUT nowhere near what they have to be for serious music production. Home hobbyists YES i am NOT debating that but peoole tend to buy them for music studios as the only machine which will BITE them in the azzz.

[arche3]

Again. They are toys.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

[JFreak]

Again, toys if you need to store gazillion gigabytes of samples in memory. Otherwise okay. I remember using sub gigabyte systems successfuly but those days are gone


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk