MacBook Air M1 2020 with FM21

[Vincerooney2001]

Hi all,

Sorry if this is in the wrong place. My friend is looking into purchasing the MacBook Air 2020 with the M1 chip to do basic work, surf the internet and play Football Manager 2021. He's asked if the MacBook Air 2020 will run Football Manager 2021 well. I've googled some reviews and it seems it will run it but there are issues with the size of the database/issues with the 3D match engine but this was from reviews of football manager with older Macbook Airs so not sure if its the same issue with the newer Macbook air.

Anyone have any idea about the performance on the latest macbook air? Any personal reviews?

Many thanks in advance!

[kevhamster]

19 minutes ago, Vincerooney2001 said:

Hi all,

Sorry if this is in the wrong place. My friend is looking into purchasing the MacBook Air 2020 with the M1 chip to do basic work, surf the internet and play Football Manager 2021. He's asked if the MacBook Air 2020 will run Football Manager 2021 well. I've googled some reviews and it seems it will run it but there are issues with the size of the database/issues with the 3D match engine but this was from reviews of football manager with older Macbook Airs so not sure if its the same issue with the newer Macbook air.

Anyone have any idea about the performance on the latest macbook air? Any personal reviews?

Many thanks in advance!

There's been various lengthy discussions on herere: the new M1 based Macbooks.  In short, the performance on these has been excellent both in terms of processing and the 3D match graphics.  

As long as the M1 based Macbooks are ordered, not the older Intel based ones, you'll be fine.

[Vincerooney2001]

1 minute ago, kevhamster said:

There's been various lengthy discussions on herere: the new M1 based Macbooks.  In short, the performance on these has been excellent both in terms of processing and the 3D match graphics.  

As long as the M1 based Macbooks are ordered, not the older Intel based ones, you'll be fine.

Hi there. Many thanks! 

[Brother Ben]

It's currently pretty much the best performing laptop processor for FM you can get

[Smurf]

5 hours ago, Brother Ben said:

It's currently pretty much the best performing laptop processor for FM you can get

One of the best. 

If they dont mind a 13 inch screen. Havent really looked in a while, not sure of its in 16 inch versions yet.

For under the price of a Mac can you buy similar performance PC laptops with 15 or 17 inch screens.

 

Just looked and 16 inch macbooks dont have m1 chips.

 

But did notice 13 inch 256gb has a 7core processor.

And the 512gb has 8core?

Not sure why...

 

Anyway if they dont mind 13 inch screen then its fine.

 

If they want a larger screen you can do better for their money with a pc laptop at much cheaper price.

[Brother Ben]

2 hours ago, Smurf said:

One of the best. 

If they dont mind a 13 inch screen. Havent really looked in a while, not sure of its in 16 inch versions yet.

For under the price of a Mac can you buy similar performance PC laptops with 15 or 17 inch screens.

 

Just looked and 16 inch macbooks dont have m1 chips.

 

But did notice 13 inch 256gb has a 7core processor.

And the 512gb has 8core?

Not sure why...

 

Anyway if they dont mind 13 inch screen then its fine.

 

If they want a larger screen you can do better for their money with a pc laptop at much cheaper price.

You're right it will very much depend on your use case

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't get one.  I need Windows for too much stuff, plus old dog new tricks and all that  

[Smurf]

9 hours ago, Brother Ben said:

You're right it will very much depend on your use case

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't get one.  I need Windows for too much stuff, plus old dog new tricks and all that  

13 inch screen is too small for my needs, and max 16gb RAM is too low for me, I need at least 32gb for my work.

Always baffles me why people shell out almost a grand on a glorified youtube/netflix/web browser.

Each to their own.

[kevhamster]

1 hour ago, Smurf said:

13 inch screen is too small for my needs, and max 16gb RAM is too low for me, I need at least 32gb for my work.

Always baffles me why people shell out almost a grand on a glorified youtube/netflix/web browser.

Each to their own.

I spent under £400 on a refurbished HP with a Ryzen 5 2500U just over a year ago primarily for music production and it does a grand job for that. 

[KennedyBakircioglu]

I've just purchased the new MacBook Air with the M1 processor, it's replacing an older MacBook Pro (2016) which in turn was a replacement for an even older MacBook Pro (2012 - which I'm still using to this day to WFH).

I used to buy Windows laptops but seemed to have no end of problems with them, at best they seemed to last a couple of years, I had a couple of Acer's, a Dell & a Toshiba, eventually I decided to take the hit and get a MacBook, I've never looked back since. The build quality and reliability is IMO second to none, plus the technical and customer support from Apple (but you would expect that given the price of their products).

I can see it from other people's perspectives, they are expensive compared to other brands and what they can do is comparable etc. but I'd rather pay a little (or a lot) more for something I know is a work of art (sorry couldn't help myself!).

Just wanted to balance up the opinions here  

[Brother Ben]

10 hours ago, KennedyBakircioglu said:

I've just purchased the new MacBook Air with the M1 processor, it's replacing an older MacBook Pro (2016) which in turn was a replacement for an even older MacBook Pro (2012 - which I'm still using to this day to WFH).

I used to buy Windows laptops but seemed to have no end of problems with them, at best they seemed to last a couple of years, I had a couple of Acer's, a Dell & a Toshiba, eventually I decided to take the hit and get a MacBook, I've never looked back since. The build quality and reliability is IMO second to none, plus the technical and customer support from Apple (but you would expect that given the price of their products).

I can see it from other people's perspectives, they are expensive compared to other brands and what they can do is comparable etc. but I'd rather pay a little (or a lot) more for something I know is a work of art (sorry couldn't help myself!).

Just wanted to balance up the opinions here  

I know what you mean, I just feel lie i'm too old to learn a new OS 

I'm fully hooked into iPhone though, I've told myself I can quit whenever I want and go back to android but like you say, they "just work"

[Mars_Blackmon]

On 21/01/2021 at 14:17, Smurf said:

13 inch screen is too small for my needs, and max 16gb RAM is too low for me, I need at least 32gb for my work.

Always baffles me why people shell out almost a grand on a glorified youtube/netflix/web browser.

Each to their own.

lol 16gb of ram on the M1 is equivalent to 32 gb on the old macs...

 

 

[Smurf]

2 hours ago, Mars_Blackmon said:

lol 16gb of ram on the M1 is equivalent to 32 gb on the old macs...

Well that's not true at all.

Apple’s new M1 computers top out at 16GB of RAM - The Verge
"Apple’s new M1 computers top out at 16GB of RAM - The Verge" https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2020/11/10/21559200/apple-m1-macbook-pro-mac-mini-16gb-ram-memory-limit

 

If you have a source please share.

Edited January 23, 2021 by Smurf

[Mars_Blackmon]

10 hours ago, Smurf said:

Well that's not true at all.

Apple’s new M1 computers top out at 16GB of RAM - The Verge
"Apple’s new M1 computers top out at 16GB of RAM - The Verge" https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2020/11/10/21559200/apple-m1-macbook-pro-mac-mini-16gb-ram-memory-limit

 

If you have a source please share.

It’s 16gb of unified ram so if anyone is used to a intel MacBook with 32 gb of ram, it will be the same.

 

[Smurf]

54 minutes ago, Mars_Blackmon said:

It’s 16gb of unified ram so if anyone is used to a intel MacBook with 32 gb of ram, it will be the same.

 

What you're talking about doesn't make any sense. 

All unified RAM means is that the 16gb is shared between the CPU and the Graphics. It doesn't use a PCIe bus. It has nothing to do with anything else. 

That's all it means.

Once again you offer no relatable source - so I'll point you again to another source

https://www.macworld.com/article/3597569/m1-macs-memory-isnt-what-it-used-to-be.html

Quote

But it’s also worth considering just how squishy the need for more memory can be when you poke at it. Sure, a lot of people feel they need it—but do they, really?

Yes, when a Mac runs out of physical memory, it will page the contents of memory to disk—and even super-fast SSDs are slower than main memory! Though the speed differences are a lot less than back when we used slow spinning disk drives.

What would cause your Mac to run out of physical memory? If you leave an awful lot of apps open at once, or if your browser has hundreds of tabs open, or if you’re using an app that loads a very large file (like, say, a Photoshop file) into memory. If you’re someone who does this a lot, you probably want more memory.... but then again, if you’re someone who does this a lot, you might not want to buy one an M1 Mac right now. The mid-range and high-end models that will undoubtedly offer more RAM options and more processor power are undoubtedly coming next year.

But if you combine the efficiency of the unified memory architecture with the speed of SSD storage, and consider most everyday use cases, I’m pretty sure that most regular users could get by with 8GB of unified memory—or, if you want to be absolutely sure, upgrade that to 16GB. (I did.)

You know nothing of me - I'm a graphic designer, have been for over 20 years, and I need more RAM than 16gb to run the Adobe Suite and to load my 5gb images in Photoshop.

Sorry - but you really don't understand the purpose of RAM - hope this clears it up for you.

 

Just to add to the last paragraph in the Quote - 8gb is plenty for most PC users or Mac Users - 16gb is plenty for MOST people.

But for people like me editing photos and videos over 8-12 hour periods in a single sitting of the computer - it doesn't cut the mustard.

 

 

Edited January 23, 2021 by Smurf

[Mars_Blackmon]

1 minute ago, Smurf said:

What you're talking about doesn't make any sense. 

All unified RAM means is that the 16gb is shared between the CPU and the Graphics. It doesn't use a PCIe bus. It has nothing to do with anything else. 

That's all it means.

Once again you offer no relatable source - so I'll point you again to another source

https://www.macworld.com/article/3597569/m1-macs-memory-isnt-what-it-used-to-be.html

You know nothing of me - I'm a graphic designer, have been for over 20 years, and I need more RAM than 16gb to run the Adobe Suite and to load my 5gb images in Photoshop.

Sorry - but you really don't understand the purpose of RAM - hope this clears it up for you.

 

 

Lol I’m a music producer... 

 

 

 

 

[Smurf]

Just now, Mars_Blackmon said:

Lol I’m a music producer... 

So?

[Mars_Blackmon]

1 minute ago, Smurf said:

So?

I had the old macs and have this one and can tell you from personal experience that the 16gb M1 is equivalent to the 32gb intell Mac because I’ve used both. I also do graphic design and video editing...

 

if you’re talking about customized ram that is faster than the stick ram that comes with Intel macs then we aren’t having the same conversation.

[Smurf]

Just now, Mars_Blackmon said:

I had the old macs and have this one and can tell you from personal experience that the 16gb of M1 is equivalent to the 32gb intell Mac because I’ve used both. I also do graphic design and video editing...

It's not - you're talking nonsense.

Most DAWs only require 8gb of RAM. You should know this.

Music production isn't that heavy of a computer task - compared to ultra 8k video production.

 

[Mars_Blackmon]

Just now, Smurf said:

It's not - you're talking nonsense.

Most DAWs only require 8gb of RAM. You should know this.

Music production isn't that heavy of a computer task - compared to ultra 8k video production.

 

It does if you use a bunch of 3rd party plugins

[Smurf]

Just now, Mars_Blackmon said:

It does if you use a bunch of 3rd party plugins

16gb is plenty for music production - on any computer. 

The gains you're seeing are from the CPU - nothing else. 

You'd get a similar performance with a Mac M1 with 8gb of RAM.

 

I'm telling you - I spend a lot of time moderating the Adobe Forums - I speak to the top level Adobe scientists on a regular basis, we've had discussions around the M1 chip and performance and the lack of more than 16gb RAM.

We've tested it - it isn't good for high end production that is required in the Print Industry (which is my background by the way).

Any Adobe user who knows their stuff will tell you the exact same thing - 32gb is standard in the graphic design industry these days.

[Mars_Blackmon]

4 minutes ago, Smurf said:

16gb is plenty for music production - on any computer. 

The gains you're seeing are from the CPU - nothing else. 

You'd get a similar performance with a Mac M1 with 8gb of RAM.

 

I'm telling you - I spend a lot of time moderating the Adobe Forums - I speak to the top level Adobe scientists on a regular basis, we've had discussions around the M1 chip and performance and the lack of more than 16gb RAM.

We've tested it - it isn't good for high end production that is required in the Print Industry (which is my background by the way).

Any Adobe user who knows their stuff will tell you the exact same thing - 32gb is standard in the graphic design industry these days.

Adobe is still running Rosetta last time I check...

16gb is enough for music production but that is the minimum if you aren’t doing anything extensive that calls for a lot of tracks and a lot of plugins.

 

i also said that I edit videos. Final cut does way better than any Mac I used that have 32 Gb of ram.

[Smurf]

Just now, Mars_Blackmon said:

Adobe is still running Rosetta last time I check...

16gb is enough for music production but that is the minimum if you aren’t doing anything extensive that calls for a lot of tracks and a lot of plugins.

i also said that I edit videos. Final cut does way better than any Mac I used that have 32 Gb of ram.

That's due to the processor - nothing to do with RAM.

If you don't believe me there's nothing I can do for you.

I've showed you the articles relating to my point - you refuse to believe. 

You can live in your own ignorance.

[Smurf]

2 minutes ago, Mars_Blackmon said:

Adobe is still running Rosetta last time I check...

 

Lightroom runs natively on Mac M1 and has issues with extremely large images.

 

[Mars_Blackmon]

 

[Smurf]

That video doesn't really show anything.

Basically 8gb is enough is what I got out of it - and most people in the comments did too.

You can do whatever you like - but you're wrong in regards to 16gb being like 32gb RAM.

It's massively wrong to say that. It's not true, especially in my line of work.

You can't say that. And you still haven't offered any evidence to this - -except your own experience based against an older Mac.

You can't convince me, because I know I'm right.

 

[Smurf]

@Mars_Blackmon- sure go on - enjoy your evening.

There's no convincing you. I'll leave it at that.

[Mars_Blackmon]

9 minutes ago, Smurf said:

That video doesn't really show anything.

Basically 8gb is enough is what I got out of it - and most people in the comments did too.

You can do whatever you like - but you're wrong in regards to 16gb being like 32gb RAM.

It's massively wrong to say that. It's not true, especially in my line of work.

You can't say that. And you still haven't offered any evidence to this - -except your own experience based against an older Mac.

You can't convince me, because I know I'm right.

 

Ummm yea, the video was about 8gb vs 16gb...

 

You obviously didn’t watch the video or all of it. He compared 8k results to a older intell 32gb and got the same results with 16gb. 

[Mars_Blackmon]

This also isn’t possible with a base model Intel Mac with 16gb. He’s doing it with 8gb M1

 

 

[Mars_Blackmon]

10 minutes ago, Smurf said:

@Mars_Blackmon- sure go on - enjoy your evening.

There's no convincing you. I'll leave it at that.

You can’t convince because I’m sitting here typing on a M1 and used a Intel Mac with 32gb (upgraded because ironically the 16gb was crashing my sessions) of ram and from my understanding you don’t have one? How can you convince me? Lol

[Smurf]

3 hours ago, Mars_Blackmon said:

You can’t convince because I’m sitting here typing on a M1 and used a Intel Mac with 32gb (upgraded because ironically the 16gb was crashing my sessions) of ram and from my understanding you don’t have one? How can you convince me? Lol

Yeh but your intel mac was a piece of overpriced garbage. Like most Macs before the M1 chip.

The M1 chip is a game changer.

Nothing to do with RAM.

[kevhamster]

7 hours ago, Smurf said:

16gb is plenty for music production - on any computer. 

The gains you're seeing are from the CPU - nothing else. 

You'd get a similar performance with a Mac M1 with 8gb of RAM.

 

I'm telling you - I spend a lot of time moderating the Adobe Forums - I speak to the top level Adobe scientists on a regular basis, we've had discussions around the M1 chip and performance and the lack of more than 16gb RAM.

We've tested it - it isn't good for high end production that is required in the Print Industry (which is my background by the way).

Any Adobe user who knows their stuff will tell you the exact same thing - 32gb is standard in the graphic design industry these days.

Can vouch for this.  I also produce music - as a hobby I'll admit rather than professionally, but I've never once run out of memory with 16GB RAM (or even close) even with my most plugin heavy projects.

Edited January 24, 2021 by kevhamster

[Mars_Blackmon]

3 hours ago, Smurf said:

Yeh but your intel mac was a piece of overpriced garbage. Like most Macs before the M1 chip.

The M1 chip is a game changer.

Nothing to do with RAM.

If you say so my man. By the tone of your posts, I can tell you’re not a Mac person so it’s really no point in having a discussion with you...

 

btw the ram is connect to the chip. So it has everything to do with Ram. It’s not the same tech as intel. The ram on the M1 is faster than the base model ram on the Intel macs because its being used a different way that makes it efficient enough to compete with 32gb on a Intel...

[Mars_Blackmon]

17 minutes ago, kevhamster said:

Can vouch for this.  I also produce music - as a hobby I'll admit rather than professionally, but I've never once run out of memory with 16GB RAM (or even close) even with my most plugin heavy projects.

How many tracks are you using, are you doing vocals? Any engineer work? Most of my peers have a limit of 32gb of ram on their macs.

 

i dear you to run multiple omnipsheres if you are just creating music.

[Smurf]

7 hours ago, Mars_Blackmon said:

If you say so my man. By the tone of your posts, I can tell you’re not a Mac person so it’s really no point in having a discussion with you...

 

btw the ram is connect to the chip. So it has everything to do with Ram. It’s not the same tech as intel. The ram on the M1 is faster than the base model ram on the Intel macs because its being used a different way that makes it efficient enough to compete with 32gb on a Intel...

I work professionally on Macs and have so for over 20 years. I know everything about the hardware and software. 

I explained to YOU what "unified RAM" is.

Your connection to 32gb RAM is way off.

@EdLmaybe can settle this.

 

[Smurf]

8 hours ago, Mars_Blackmon said:

How many tracks are you using, are you doing vocals? Any engineer work? Most of my peers have a limit of 32gb of ram on their macs.

 

i dear you to run multiple omnipsheres if you are just creating music.

But thats processor work, not ram work.

A lot of Macs sold with intel chips had U type Intel processors. 

[Smurf]

This has forced me to read a lot more about the M1 chip and the RAM.

I hadn't really looked into it in a while. 

I found this snippet on a website

Quote

The biggest difference was seen in an 8K RAW R3D to 4K export, which took the 8GB MacBook Pro 13 minutes and 57 seconds to complete, while the 16GB MacBook Pro was able to complete it in 5 minutes and 59 seconds, a time on par with the 2019 16-inch Core i9 MacBook Pro with 32GB RAM.

Which where @Mars_Blackmonmight be getting the info they were speaking about.

1)  that's really surprising. Given that FM benchmarks on the M1 chip with 8gb and 16gb haven't had huge gaps like that.

2) I don't know why there is a huge gap like that in the video sample in the quoted piece - it doesn't make much sense. But then again I am finding lots of skews in Mac evidence in regards to performance.

 

For instance - this portion

Quote

16GB MacBook Pro was able to complete it in 5 minutes and 59 seconds, a time on par with the 2019 16-inch Core i9 MacBook Pro with 32GB RAM.

The i9 processor in this is an i9-9880H 

Compared to a high-end AMD processor - it's clear to see.

You can buy an 4600H laptop with 16gb RAM here - https://www.box.co.uk/53011GXM-Honor-MagicBook-Pro_3172784.html 

Cheaper than a Mac - and clearly better than the i9-9880H that is sold at extortinate prices on the Apple site.

This laptop is under £800.

The Mac is priced at - £2,799.00

 

 

Now - the M1 chip is a great Processor - it's fantasitc. 

It works better as Unified RAM - no doubt - not in question.

But back to the point - after the previous comparison

Quote

 

16GB MacBook Pro was able to complete it in 5 minutes and 59 seconds, a time on par with the 2019 16-inch Core i9 MacBook Pro with 32GB RAM.

 

This is down to the processor - not the RAM.

It's on PAR with the i9-9880H processor - which is on PAR with the i7-10875H by the way.

My big question is - did they test this with 2019 16-inch Core i9 MacBook Pro with 16GB RAM????

No - they didn't.

 

The remark that it's ON PAR has nothing to do with the RAM.

It's basically saying the M1 chip with 16gb RAM is ON PAR with the i9-9880H.

And once again I point to the evidence of the Football Manager Benchmark Thread carried out by everyday forum users.

 

 

 

The M1 chip is performing similarly with 8gb or 16gb of RAM - and on PAR with the i7-10750H (in the sample sets abobe) which is a similar performance to the i9-9880H.

The FM benchmarking also shows that people with the exact same M1 Laptop from Apple - with the exact same RAM - are getting different results.

You can see that from the bottom Data Set - compared to the middle data sets.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2021 by Smurf

[kevhamster]

9 hours ago, Mars_Blackmon said:

How many tracks are you using, are you doing vocals? Any engineer work? Most of my peers have a limit of 32gb of ram on their macs.

 

i dear you to run multiple omnipsheres if you are just creating music.

Tracks vary depending on what I'm doing, I think the most I've had so far is 26.  And yes, that includes vocals. 

Can't test multiple omnispheres though as I don't own omnisphere.  And my hardware monitor tells me it's the CPU doing the heavy lifting in any case. 

[Mars_Blackmon]

3 hours ago, kevhamster said:

Tracks vary depending on what I'm doing, I think the most I've had so far is 26.  And yes, that includes vocals. 

Can't test multiple omnispheres though as I don't own omnisphere.  And my hardware monitor tells me it's the CPU doing the heavy lifting in any case. 

So like I said, 16 is enough if you aren’t doing anything extensive and using a ton of 3rd party plugins...

[Mars_Blackmon]

3 hours ago, Smurf said:

This has forced me to read a lot more about the M1 chip and the RAM.

I hadn't really looked into it in a while. 

I found this snippet on a website

Which where @Mars_Blackmonmight be getting the info they were speaking about.

1)  that's really surprising. Given that FM benchmarks on the M1 chip with 8gb and 16gb haven't had huge gaps like that.

2) I don't know why there is a huge gap like that in the video sample in the quoted piece - it doesn't make much sense. But then again I am finding lots of skews in Mac evidence in regards to performance.

 

For instance - this portion

The i9 processor in this is an i9-9880H 

Compared to a high-end AMD processor - it's clear to see.

You can buy an 4600H laptop with 16gb RAM here - https://www.box.co.uk/53011GXM-Honor-MagicBook-Pro_3172784.html 

Cheaper than a Mac - and clearly better than the i9-9880H that is sold at extortinate prices on the Apple site.

This laptop is under £800.

The Mac is priced at - £2,799.00

 

 

Now - the M1 chip is a great Processor - it's fantasitc. 

It works better as Unified RAM - no doubt - not in question.

But back to the point - after the previous comparison

This is down to the processor - not the RAM.

It's on PAR with the i9-9880H processor - which is on PAR with the i7-10875H by the way.

My big question is - did they test this with 2019 16-inch Core i9 MacBook Pro with 16GB RAM????

No - they didn't.

 

The remark that it's ON PAR has nothing to do with the RAM.

It's basically saying the M1 chip with 16gb RAM is ON PAR with the i9-9880H.

And once again I point to the evidence of the Football Manager Benchmark Thread carried out by everyday forum users.

 

 

 

The M1 chip is performing similarly with 8gb or 16gb of RAM - and on PAR with the i7-10750H (in the sample sets abobe) which is a similar performance to the i9-9880H.

The FM benchmarking also shows that people with the exact same M1 Laptop from Apple - with the exact same RAM - are getting different results.

You can see that from the bottom Data Set - compared to the middle data sets.

 

 

Ram doesn’t really matter in FM so of course it’s similar...M1 processing power is just as good as the top of the line Intel MacBook for $1000’s less...

 

M1 ram is built into the chip, it’s unified and swaps faster than Intel. If you are used to a 32gb ram Intel Mac like I am, you won’t see a drop off in efficiency with the 16gb M1...

 

in fact, I can play FM and have Logic Pro running at the same time now without any hiccups. Something that wasn’t possible with a 16gb Intel Mac.

 

recap:

16gb of ram on the M1 isnt the same 16gb of ram on Intel macs...

[Smurf]

45 minutes ago, Mars_Blackmon said:

recap:

16gb of ram on the M1 isnt the same 16gb of ram on Intel macs...

No it's not same - finally we agree - as it's unified RAM. It can speed up the overall performance including processor in certain circumstances. 

But saying that 16gb RAM is the same 32gb on older Macs is wrong - you're confusing what's happening on your computer.

The gains you're seeing are from 1) the better processor, 2) The unified RAM is probably giving some gains to overall speed.

But 16gb RAM is not the same as 32gb on older Macs, that's just not right.

45 minutes ago, Mars_Blackmon said:

Ram doesn’t really matter in FM so of course it’s similar

 

in fact, I can play FM and have Logic Pro running at the same time now without any hiccups. Something that wasn’t possible with a 16gb Intel Mac.

Logic Pro is quite a low-end programme - it only requires 4gb RAM - 8gb is plenty - and 16gb is what most go for running plugins - but some do go for 32gb. 

The reason why you can do more with the M1 chip - is the chip - not the RAM. 

If you had the 8gb RAM Macbook with M1 chip you can do the exact same.

The chip in the Intel Mac is probably a lower end U processor - if you give me the year of the Mac and the Model - I can tell you what processor was in that model.

 

Anyway - my point as always been it's not enough for me (16gb RAM) - and somehow this has become about you?

I can't and won't buy a Mac with the M1 chip - YET.

1) Not enough RAM for me

2) Adobe not fully up to speed - but runs fine and just as well on Rosetta in comparison to running on other Intel Macs of similar spec

3) No extrenal GPU support

4) Not enough disk space

5) Not enough ports

6) For the price - I can get a much better computer for cheaper that does what I need.

*edit 7) Screen size too small.

 

Need any more reasons?

Edited January 24, 2021 by Smurf

[Mars_Blackmon]

5 hours ago, Smurf said:

No it's not same - finally we agree - as it's unified RAM. It can speed up the overall performance including processor in certain circumstances. 

But saying that 16gb RAM is the same 32gb on older Macs is wrong - you're confusing what's happening on your computer.

The gains you're seeing are from 1) the better processor, 2) The unified RAM is probably giving some gains to overall speed.

But 16gb RAM is not the same as 32gb on older Macs, that's just not right.

Logic Pro is quite a low-end programme - it only requires 4gb RAM - 8gb is plenty - and 16gb is what most go for running plugins - but some do go for 32gb. 

The reason why you can do more with the M1 chip - is the chip - not the RAM. 

If you had the 8gb RAM Macbook with M1 chip you can do the exact same.

The chip in the Intel Mac is probably a lower end U processor - if you give me the year of the Mac and the Model - I can tell you what processor was in that model.

 

Anyway - my point as always been it's not enough for me (16gb RAM) - and somehow this has become about you?

I can't and won't buy a Mac with the M1 chip - YET.

1) Not enough RAM for me

2) Adobe not fully up to speed - but runs fine and just as well on Rosetta in comparison to running on other Intel Macs of similar spec

3) No extrenal GPU support

4) Not enough disk space

5) Not enough ports

6) For the price - I can get a much better computer for cheaper that does what I need.

*edit 7) Screen size too small.

 

Need any more reasons?

You’re arguing semantics. Every posts I’ve said the performance is the same.

 

16gb is 16gb you’re not going to get a limit of 32 but you will get the same or closer to the same performance depending on if you are using optimized software or not.

 

You also keep bringing up logic not needing lots of ram but keep ignoring 3rd party plugins and the amount of ram needed for large sample libraries. 

[kevhamster]

45 minutes ago, Mars_Blackmon said:

You’re arguing semantics. Every posts I’ve said the performance is the same.

 

16gb is 16gb you’re not going to get a limit of 32 but you will get the same or closer to the same performance depending on if you are using optimized software or not.

 

You also keep bringing up logic not needing lots of ram but keep ignoring 3rd party plugins and the amount of ram needed for large sample libraries. 

What you seem to be missing is the performance uplift you're referring to is down to the change in CPU and nothing to do with the amount of RAM. 

Smurf has provided independent links to back up his argument and he is in fact correct. 

[Mars_Blackmon]

2 hours ago, kevhamster said:

What you seem to be missing is the performance uplift you're referring to is down to the change in CPU and nothing to do with the amount of RAM. 

Smurf has provided independent links to back up his argument and he is in fact correct. 

The performance is related to the ram being used more efficiently than it was being used in a Intel Mac.

 

it’s funny how I am currently working on a 4k footage in final cut as I responding to your posts. With Netflix on another tab.
 

Not possible on a Intel Mac with 16gb of ram whether it’s a i7 or i9.

[Smurf]

9 hours ago, Mars_Blackmon said:

Not possible on a Intel Mac with 16gb of ram whether it’s a i7 or i9.

That claim is unfounded. Unless you have botht he i7 or the i9 model with 16 and 32gb RAM - which you probably don't.

And you still haven't answered my question - what Year and Model of Mac Intel did/do you have?

 

[Smurf]

You know what @Mars_Blackmon- I've tried my best with you - I've given you links to articles, written by Mac experts saying that if you need more RAM  for heftier tasks then you have to wait - the experts on Mac websites admit that 16gb isn't enough for some people - I'm some people. 

If you can't accept that - then there's nothing I can do for you. 

[Mars_Blackmon]

5 hours ago, Smurf said:

You know what @Mars_Blackmon- I've tried my best with you - I've given you links to articles, written by Mac experts saying that if you need more RAM  for heftier tasks then you have to wait - the experts on Mac websites admit that 16gb isn't enough for some people - I'm some people. 

If you can't accept that - then there's nothing I can do for you. 

You are making a different argument.

I said the 16Gb on the M1 is good enough if you are used to a 32gb Intel.  Let’s not forget that you prettymuch called the machine a Netflix browser...
 

There are videos of 8gb M1 chip competing with a 64gb Intel when it comes to rendering and some 8k tasks. Of course the 64gb beats it but a 8gb ram Intel wouldn’t even be able to play some of the files that the M1 can let alone render it...

 

If you personally need more ram, great! I am planning to upgrade myself when the newest version come out so I can future proof because I also do graphic design and make vids...But my M1 is perfectly fine doing those task right now with Final Cut Pro and would work even better with Adobe once that is optimized for M1.

 

edit-

 

Most of those reviews were featuring the base model 8gb, it’s the reason I’ve opted for the 16 even though the 8gb M1 is good enough for music production.

 

For my studio I use 2019 I9 MacBook Pro upgraded to 32gb (from 16)

 

I replaced my home computer from a 2009 iMac with the M1.

I frequent many studios and collab with many different people so I’ve used many different laptops.

 

 

[Smurf]

But its the 8gb m1 vs intel xxxxU processor with 64gb.

I think mac have done this on purpose the comparison tests are against lower end intel processors that were sold with the mac.

As on site already noted and i quoted already, the M1 processor was on par with the intel i9 in another mac.

 

Edited January 25, 2021 by Smurf

[Mars_Blackmon]

4 hours ago, Smurf said:

But its the 8gb m1 vs intel xxxxU processor with 64gb.

I think mac have done this on purpose the comparison tests are against lower end intel processors that were sold with the mac.

As on site already noted and i quoted already, the M1 processor was on par with the intel i9 in another mac.

 

M1 MacBook Pro 8GB RAM using 8k HDR10

M1 MacBook Pro 8GB RAM vs Intel I9 32 GB RAM

Take it for what it’s worth.

 

[Harper]

On 19/01/2021 at 18:05, Vincerooney2001 said:

Hi all,

Sorry if this is in the wrong place. My friend is looking into purchasing the MacBook Air 2020 with the M1 chip to do basic work, surf the internet and play Football Manager 2021. He's asked if the MacBook Air 2020 will run Football Manager 2021 well. I've googled some reviews and it seems it will run it but there are issues with the size of the database/issues with the 3D match engine but this was from reviews of football manager with older Macbook Airs so not sure if its the same issue with the newer Macbook air.

Anyone have any idea about the performance on the latest macbook air? Any personal reviews?

Many thanks in advance!

Pretty extensive thread here. I posted a few examples of my battery performance and league set up.

 

[ClaudiuS]

Hello,

Is there someone who can help me understand why my game won't open on Mac M1 2020? For example, fm20 is opening and working. fm21 after I click play (steam) load for 5sec with message running and that's all.