Confused about RAM and M1's

[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

[JFreak]

It seems that Apple Silicon is more efficient than Intels, but whenever you need to store tons of samples into memory that efficiency does not matter. In other words, normal mixing Apple Silicon is good for starters, for VI-heavy composing just need to wait for enough memory.

[Sparky1]

Thanks for the response JFreak.

So if I'm following you correctly... RAM is still quite integral when loading larger sessions and likely will be for some time?

Just getting ready to upgrade my system - but a little hesitant because I'm starting to hear how well the M1's outperform Intel systems.

I am leaning towards an Intel system with 64 GB RAM (I have 16 GB now - but occasionally get squeezed out of memory).

Planning on picking up one of the last of the 16-inch MacBook Pro's with Intel - and I am checking daily in case they decide to do one final update before switching these over to M1's.

Thanks,

Sparky

[TrentWilliams]

I just bought into the last of the Intel Mac Mini the other side of Christmas, I made the decision based off compatibility inertia. I figured I’ll get 4 years out of it, by that time the M series should be integrated and ready for prime time.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by Sparky1

So if I'm following you correctly... RAM is still quite integral when loading larger sessions and likely will be for some time?

You cannot fit 32GB sample library into 16GB memory, that is just physical fact. Even though storage systems are faster than ever, it means system needs to do a lot of swapping things between memory and storage. Eventually it leads to problems.

If the memory stays capped low for a long time, I bet companies selling VI need to optimize their software for such swapping for better performance. Clever companies such as Synthogy have already done it, but some sample-based instruments are still memory hogs and it does not matter if the memory is model 2021 or 2031 or 2041, 16GB is still 16GB and if the instrument demands more it will be a problem.

In case you only track and mix, 16GB is plenty.

[Obsidian Dragon]

Originally Posted by Sparky1

So if I'm following you correctly... RAM is still quite integral when loading larger sessions and likely will be for some time?

It isn't so much the size of the session (number of tracks/length of tracks) but the size of the samples used for sample-based Virtual Instruments that need to be loaded into RAM (versus access from a drive). As stated above, if you don't use much sample-based VIs from RAM and only track and mix audio, outboard midi, disk-based VIs, or nonsample-based VIs. 16 Gb should be plenty. You'll need to monitor the use of real-time Plugins (as the amount of RAM used varies). If you use the plugins to process and print the resultant tracks or buses, it releases the plugin's use of RAM in real-time. So, with some forethought and workflow adjustments, 16 GB may work for some people. If your work requires loading large sample-based VI into RAM, 16 GB may not be a platform suitable for you.

[Sparky1]

Originally Posted by JFreak

You cannot fit 32GB sample library into 16GB memory, that is just physical fact.

This makes sense to me... Thanks JFreak

Sparky

[Sparky1]

Originally Posted by JFreak

In case you only track and mix, 16GB is plenty.

This is what I mostly do now and have actually run out of RAM... with maybe 30 tracks...


Sparky

[Sparky1]

Originally Posted by Obsidian Dragon

It isn't so much the size of the session (number of tracks/length of tracks) but the size of the samples used for sample-based Virtual Instruments that need to be loaded into RAM (versus access from a drive).

Thanks Obsidian Dragon
Kinda new to the VI world... are you suggesting that if the VI is stored on an external drive - it's less taxing on the RAM?

Originally Posted by Obsidian Dragon

If you use the plugins to process and print the resultant tracks or buses, it releases the plugin's use of RAM in real-time.

Do a lot of people do this?




And just off on a bit of a tangent... been kinda thinking of doing more video work with either Adobe Premiere Pro or Final Cut (still testing these waters) - would I be correct in thinking that these types of programs are happier with more RAM?


Sparky

[JFreak]

Yes many need to commit a VI track to audio because the system is unable to play "unlimited" VI tracks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk