|
Post by CdnPhoto on Nov 1, 2023 3:56:20 GMT -8
New month. Does Santa start showing up? AAPL currently at $169.50 -1.27 (-0.74%) RSI is 41.61
|
|
|
Post by dmiller on Nov 1, 2023 6:10:01 GMT -8
Ruminating about whether Mr. Market is unimpressed with the Scary Event and the new M3 specs….
If unimpressed, could only be from gross stupidity. Just look at the jump in processor speed in less than a year (M2’s only came out in January) that would have taken Intel processors 5 years (if ever) to accomplish, at even lower power consumption and improved battery life. M3 can now support up to 128GB unified memory if wanted (for those it would be important to? Price makes no difference). The laptop displays can run slightly brighter at 600 nits for SDR.
Note that: This isn’t an upgrade for anyone with an M2 (less than a year old), which is why Apple’s charts at the event compared M3 speeds to both M1-series of the same flavor, and (ugh) older Intel Macs. The comparison is stunning.
M3 Max is almost twice as fast (80% faster) than M1 Max from 2021. That’s crazy good. What’s even better? I think the comparison with the fastest deprecated Intel Macs from 2019 was 10x or 11x as fast. The message is clear - it’s time for people with Intel Macs to upgrade.
Same is also true for those with M1 who want measurably better performance for time consuming tasks (for me: M1 Max, 32GB, working in huge RAW files from DSLRs in Lightroom and Photoshop). Every noticeable speed bump helps - the time it takes Adobe AI to do things like: identify and mask people, lips, skin, objects, etc in Lightroom; time to assemble large stitched files; to work with complex layers of masks while editing; to perform AI Denoise and 4x upscaling; to name a few examples. Faster speed, more cores, faster GPU, more unified memory should noticeably speed these up on M3 vs M1.
People may start to forget how painfully small the incremental progress was between different semi-major iterations of Intel Macs. You’d get small boosts to clock speed every couple of years (never yearly) and performance would be “slightly” better, but nothing ever in history like these “massive in comparison” increments of M-series processors and built-in GPU and built-in ML.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,649
|
Post by 4aapl on Nov 1, 2023 8:18:01 GMT -8
We should keep in mind who these "unimpressed" are.
I don't think they are high end users. For those pushing the limits, and having wait times, any improvement is huge. A friend makes video trailers for video games. It's well worth it for him to have the latest and greatest. OTOH, aside from boot times and app launch times, I just don't ever do things that have lag due to processing power. But the pro market, and consumers that are pushing the limits with filtering, rendering, or gaming? They can justify or be tempted by the "more power!" showing.
But those "unimpressed"? I think it comes down to analysts or big investors that feel they have already baked in decent to high increases in processing power, and really are just looking to be surprised. Does that matter, or is it even possible? Maybe. But these unimpressed really do get the headlines in the investment articles, partly because Apple has been consistently improving the processors.
|
|
|
Post by duckpins on Nov 1, 2023 8:45:14 GMT -8
If unimpressed, could only be from gross stupidity. No large iMacs of either 27 or 30 inch.
That would impress. Seasonality says we rally now and then through the election. Good news on inflation in Europe. Apple earnings will be of interest.
|
|
|
Post by duckpins on Nov 1, 2023 8:54:33 GMT -8
Not directly Apple news but talking heads saying there is an iron ore shortage. RIO is the biggest harvester of ore down under. Stock to watch. If China is building good for all and it starts with steel. A boom in China would boost Apple eventually.
|
|
|
Post by dmiller on Nov 1, 2023 9:02:36 GMT -8
If unimpressed, could only be from gross stupidity. No large iMacs of either 27 or 30 inch. That would impress. Seasonality says we rally now and then through the election. Good news on inflation in Europe. Apple earnings will be of interest. It’s unclear when/if a 27” iMac will appear again. They seem to have decided until now, that the 24” size is “enough” for the target iMac market and anyone wanting a larger display will either get a Mini or Studio (still no M3’s there!) to use with either one of Apple’s larger standalone displays, or someone else’s. If you want to run M3 on a display larger than 24”, you need to do it as an external display attached to any of today’s M3 systems - which is a shame. 24” and smaller is too small for most video and onto work. 27 and larger is the key. Same can be said for software development. Neither of these cases are “most people” but they’re still key components of the power user market. Maybe simpler: they don’t want to have a lineup of M-series multiply sized built-in displays, and they’ve settled on 24” as the best compromise for now.
|
|
Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,113
|
Post by Dave on Nov 1, 2023 9:14:22 GMT -8
I’m guessing that the real market for the M3 could be the buildout for server farms in preparation for AI. One M3 could replace how many older generation processors presently in use? I would guess that it’s a high multiple.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,649
|
Post by 4aapl on Nov 1, 2023 9:15:21 GMT -8
If unimpressed, could only be from gross stupidity. No large iMacs of either 27 or 30 inch. That would impress. Seasonality says we rally now and then through the election. Good news on inflation in Europe. Apple earnings will be of interest. I think we have to try to realize when we are edge case in our wants. I really like my 27" iMac, but along with the screen size is having (I think) some standard parts inside, though I guess I haven't opened this one up. And being able to add memory, which I took from 8 gigs to 40 gigs. But admittedly Apple has moved to more of the non-upgradable appliance. And really, even though I have had Macs with extra HDs, video and other cards, and even added additional optical drives, there are ways to do some of that externally and really not too many non-pro users do things like that. The part that misses out is probably generally the higher end potentially geeky user trying to trick things out, but not spend into the upper pro level that might have some of these internal upgrade possibilities. But it's also a history thing, thinking back to what you did in the past. There was a time where you had to add video cards to support additional monitors. Now I believe all Macs support additional monitors, at pretty high resolutions. You might not be able to add a high end graphics card into a low end Mac Mini, but you can still drive at least 2 monitors, and I think that's 2 at 4k instead of just FHD. On my 27" iMac, or a now standard 24", you can add at least one extra monitor. It's never quite the same as one huge monitor, and it's hard to match up the color and screen density perfectly since Apple uses higher end displays, but there are also some advantages. But unlike the PC gamers market where a large box might have 3-6 expansion slots, 4-8 memory slots, and room for 4+ various drives, most Macs these days are trying to be more equivalent to an iPhone, where you just buy something and use it for 2-6+ years, and then upgrade when you feel you need more. And that does give some advantages to Apple, including to be able to build to what is in the unit rather than what might be put into the unit, for space, power, heat, and speed (such as limiting buses, moving the memory closer to the processor, and using non-standard SSD connections). And basically this is what Apple has done in the OS world, limiting things to help improve things. Optimizing. But that does mean that they need to focus on the more standard users and user cases, which leaves some of the edge cases ("But I really want this...") out. Like those that focus on wanting a small flip phone size (though these numbers are shrinking by the year), it can take some effort to open up to understanding all of the advantages of a current smart phone. For me personally, I think I need to just embrace the "it just works, and it does it well" mindset, instead of worrying much about what potential upgrades I might not be able to do to it in the future. (EDIT: Part of this is the longer term aspect of a purchase. Like a car or an appliance, we are expecting it to last for at least a few years, and so we try to use our past experiences and future expectations to come up with what we need. For instance in buying a new washing machine maybe 8 years ago, our old one had a filter right before the pump that you could get to and empty things out. It would occasionally get things like baby socks in it, and had some improbable things like a quarter (how did that make it to there?). But in buying a new one, past experience made it seem like this should be a requirement, and so I bought one that had a user accessible filter, instead of the higher rated Maytag one that had a filter but it was hidden under something and not really user accessible. Since we can't really do side by side comparisons to know how both would have worked on the same things over the past years, I don't know how the Maytag would have done. But our Samsung is doing ok, I clear out the filter every year or two, and two times that it threw errors the filter was clogged with a small kids face mask or something. Given this, and having to do the same for the in-laws, if purchasing a new one today I would get one with a user serviceable filter. OTOH, if Maytag or someone else made it so nothing larger than a small pebble could make it through to the pump, a user accessible filter wouldn't be needed. So it can be a design thing vs a user history and thus preference thing. The Mac might be a little different, but it is the same general idea. I bet Apple could do well selling a unit for $100 more that had some upgradability options, even if most people never ended up using them. But Apple likes to simplify, and the more likely choice here for non-pro level systems is the ability to add things externally. And while as far as I know this hasn't been an option for memory, this is a decent solution for most things other than the very high end)
|
|
Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,113
|
Post by Dave on Nov 1, 2023 9:59:18 GMT -8
When upgradeability is only available at the time of manufacture, then the profit for that upgrade goes to Apple, not some third party supplier. Which as an investor is good. Plus it makes the architecture of the motherboard more efficient in operation and to manufacture. And it reduces the number of repair complaints caused by the uninformed sticking their fingers in delicate places. And it encourages customers to buy the high end offering hoping that it will provide a longer service life, also good for the bottomline. All smart marketing.
|
|
|
Post by dmiller on Nov 1, 2023 10:04:51 GMT -8
From what I’m reading, M3 Max slightly outperforms M2 Ultra on Geekbench.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,649
|
Post by 4aapl on Nov 1, 2023 11:16:54 GMT -8
For people that haven't seen it, the M3/MacBook Pro/iMac video is at www.apple.com/apple-events/There's a lot of info packed into that 30 minutes, and not too much extra fluff. To me it was a bit of information overload. While all that info could be helpful, it would be nice if it could be distilled down to a meaningful take away, like when some of Steve's keynotes would have an Adobe script running to show that it was 50% faster. Johny's cache (hmmmm) video on optimization was intriguing, but it really just comes down to overall performance, possibly both in real world and ideal situations. I think in general the M3 was 15-20% faster than the M2, and 30-50% faster than the M1. Both of those are huge for people pushing the limits of their systems, and then it was an even larger figure when comparing Intel based Macs. Apple insider has a few different related articles, including this one on geekbench tests appleinsider.com/articles/23/11/01/benchmarks-confirm-apples-performance-claims-for-the-new-series-of-m3-chips(EDIT: AI also has some VP promotions appleinsider.com/articles/23/10/15/apples-corporate-reshuffle-includes-many-vp-promotions . And I corrected Johny's name spelling, per www.apple.com/leadership/ Nice to see a surge in AAPL and the market, post Fed announcement that they are staying steady.)
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,649
|
Post by 4aapl on Nov 1, 2023 12:20:27 GMT -8
A lawsuit in the UK against Apple over iPhone battery throttling can go forward, though it needs to get more specific: finance.yahoo.com/news/1-mass-lawsuit-against-apple-141558077.htmlAs one who had an old iPhone 5S, which at around 5 years old started turning off in sub-freezing conditions and then temps as high as 50 degrees F, I've found these lawsuits annoying. That software would have worked great for me, letting me take the iPhone out of my pocket and taking a picture, as opposed to shutting down or crashing. It was just the way that Apple did it at first, without stating it upfront and giving users the choice. But it bugs me that Apple has been punished (one of these lawsuits already went through in the US) for doing the right thing for the overall user experience.
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Nov 1, 2023 13:33:27 GMT -8
My older son, who also prompted me to consider buying an Apple computer years ago (when I planned to get a PC Clone), sent me a link, also years ago, to a site called Daring Fireball, authored by John Gruber. I recommend the site to any AFB member who may be unfamiliar with it...and I particularly want to recommend his article from yesterday, Tuesday, 10/31/23. It deals with Apple's recent event from Monday, 10/30/23. I've enclosed the article below for your convenience. DOWNPLAYING THE FACT THAT APPLE SHOT ‘SCARY FAST’ WITH IPHONES ★Jess Weatherbed, writing for The Verge under the headline “Here’s What Apple Really Means When It Says ‘Shot on iPhone’”: "It’s a neat way to promote the recording quality of iPhone cameras, but it’s not like everyday folks can recreate these kinds of results at home unless they happen to own a shedload of ludicrously expensive equipment. The gear shown in the “Scary Fast” behind-the-scenes footage is fairly standard for big studio productions, but Apple’s implication with these so-called “shot on iPhone” promotions is that anyone can do it if only they buy the newest iPhone."John Gruber: I saw a few folks mocking Apple for this on Mastodon and Threads, too. This is ridiculous. Do these people think that previous Apple keynote films were shot with just a single camera person wielding something like a $40K RED cinema camera and no crew, no lighting, no cranes? That the iPhone “needs help” that traditional cinema cameras do not? I mean, guess what, they used professional microphones too.
Apple occasionally points out that they make all their software — iOS, MacOS, Safari and Webkit, Final Cut, the iWork suite, Photos and Camera … all of it — using Xcode, Swift, Objective-C, and the AppKit, UIKit, and SwiftUI frameworks that they offer free of charge to all developers. Pissing all over Apple for using expensive production sets for their keynote shoots while promoting the fact that they shot it using iPhone cameras is like pissing on Apple’s developer offerings because a lone developer or small team couldn’t create an entire operating system or non-linear professional video editing system.
The whole point is that an iPhone 15 Pro camera is so good that it can fit right in on a high-budget commercial film shoot, and produce world-class results. There’s no implication that a casual user can get results like this by just hitting the shutter button in the iPhone Camera app. That’s why Apple made an entire behind-the-scenes documentary! To show us what it takes to make something look this good.
Why be so cynical? What Apple has accomplished here is extraordinary. They shot a 30-minute film using the same phone cameras they sell to hundreds of millions of people around the world, and the footage looked so good that no one could tell it was shot using iPhones until they told us so.
This is Apple at its best: they make tools for us, using those very same tools themselves.
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,554
|
Post by mark on Nov 1, 2023 17:17:50 GMT -8
The Mac might be a little different, but it is the same general idea. I bet Apple could do well selling a unit for $100 more that had some upgradability options, even if most people never ended up using them. But Apple likes to simplify, and the more likely choice here for non-pro level systems is the ability to add things externally. And while as far as I know this hasn't been an option for memory, this is a decent solution for most things other than the very high end) It's not just a matter of simplification. If you provide upgradability, like using slots that cards are inserted, you lose quite a lot. In fact, you lose a lot of the "Apple"-ness of the product. For example, if you allow memory to be added via external bus (a slot with a card), then you lose a few important things, one, you lose the tightly tied processor memory link, that slows down memory access, and two, likely slows down even further when external memory is added because the bus has to run max at the lowest high speed of any device connected to the bus. Next you may add "cheap" memory cards that don't quite behave entirely properly, that'll slow things down even more as the processor has to make allowance for such things. Three, your memory controller gets more complex because it has more sources, more speeds, more exceptions, etc. That also slows things down. I could easily see a mac running at 50% or 25% or even at 12.5% of the speed with external memory added. Other important things that are lost by allowing slots for customization are: * You lose the svelte form factor because you need to leave a bunch of empty space for cards. * You need to add extra fans to the design in case people insert heavy duty expansion cards. Adds noise as well. * You depend on people inserting cards properly, and doing all sorts of additional customized settings on their own. Adding other customizing cards often have even worse implications. Sometimes they are "mostly" compatible, but not entirely and then every once in a while something weird happens. There's no way for Apple to test every single combination of external 3rd party hardware. Especially when said hardware will come out AFTER the Apple product (mac, in this case) has shipped. Then Apple has to field TONS of calls caused by issues related to 3rd party cards. They have to educate their customer service people with a lot more information, and information that changes constantly (new 3rd party cards, new 3rd party software, etc). It's essentially an impossible task to do well. In general, it's a terrible idea to allow for upgradability like this for regular users. Too many pitfalls and it invariably ends up making the product slower, more cumbersome, and trouble prone. This is especially true for Macs that are designed ON the leading edge of many technologies (3nm for example). Like I said above, you end up losing a lot of the "Apple"-ness of the product. If unimpressed, could only be from gross stupidity. No large iMacs of either 27 or 30 inch. I suspect that Apple knows how many 24 inch and 27 inch iMacs have sold in recent years. Right now they choose to only sell the 24 inch model. They may or may not add a larger screen model at some point. Maybe they see folks who use larger screens tend to be power users (heavy graphics editing for example) and tend to buy "pro" macs? The iMac doesn't come in pro trim, so perhaps it doesn't make sense to make a larger screen version.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,649
|
Post by 4aapl on Nov 1, 2023 21:09:50 GMT -8
The Mac might be a little different, but it is the same general idea. I bet Apple could do well selling a unit for $100 more that had some upgradability options, even if most people never ended up using them. But Apple likes to simplify, and the more likely choice here for non-pro level systems is the ability to add things externally. And while as far as I know this hasn't been an option for memory, this is a decent solution for most things other than the very high end) It's not just a matter of simplification. If you provide upgradability, like using slots that cards are inserted, you lose quite a lot. In fact, you lose a lot of the "Apple"-ness of the product. For example, if you allow memory to be added via external bus (a slot with a card), then you lose a few important things, one, you lose the tightly tied processor memory link, that slows down memory access, and two, likely slows down even further when external memory is added because the bus has to run max at the lowest high speed of any device connected to the bus. Next you may add "cheap" memory cards that don't quite behave entirely properly, that'll slow things down even more as the processor has to make allowance for such things. Three, your memory controller gets more complex because it has more sources, more speeds, more exceptions, etc. That also slows things down. I could easily see a mac running at 50% or 25% or even at 12.5% of the speed with external memory added. Other important things that are lost by allowing slots for customization are: * You lose the svelte form factor because you need to leave a bunch of empty space for cards. * You need to add extra fans to the design in case people insert heavy duty expansion cards. Adds noise as well. * You depend on people inserting cards properly, and doing all sorts of additional customized settings on their own. Adding other customizing cards often have even worse implications. Sometimes they are "mostly" compatible, but not entirely and then every once in a while something weird happens. There's no way for Apple to test every single combination of external 3rd party hardware. Especially when said hardware will come out AFTER the Apple product (mac, in this case) has shipped. Then Apple has to field TONS of calls caused by issues related to 3rd party cards. They have to educate their customer service people with a lot more information, and information that changes constantly (new 3rd party cards, new 3rd party software, etc). It's essentially an impossible task to do well. In general, it's a terrible idea to allow for upgradability like this for regular users. Too many pitfalls and it invariably ends up making the product slower, more cumbersome, and trouble prone. This is especially true for Macs that are designed ON the leading edge of many technologies (3nm for example). Like I said above, you end up losing a lot of the "Apple"-ness of the product. While this is all true, and included in my post, it wasn't that long ago that Apple offered the ability to add extra PCI cards to many of its systems, and memory cards to nearly all of its systems. But with the move to Apple processors with on-board memory, added memory has gone away. It wouldn't be an impossible task to have it there, just as Apple made the hybrid SSD/HD drives. But it is an added complexity that just doesn't make sense for them to do, possibly at this time but likely for the foreseeable future. There are still PCI slots in a Mac Pro, or in an external add-on box. But yes, if most people don't use them, there's not too much of a reason to add them. OTOH, there's the car analogy, where many people buy based on the "what if" or "couple times a year" perceived need. That can make the up-sale for memory configs, but it can also make someone that would gladly pay a bit more for that option instead hesitate when that option isn't even available. Looking at the specs, I was a little surprised that the Mac Studio didn't have one PCI slot. The bigger footprint, along with higher power needs and more cooling, seemed like a good fit. But really it has been more than a decade since I have needed a PCI card even though I have used plenty of video, USB, SCSI, Ethernet, and Radius Rocket cards over the years. I think the last 2 cards I have used or installed was a USB 2.0 card in a Mac tower my parents had, and a wireless card in a PC running Mac OS (wireless was one of the toughest things to get working in those, since more on-board ones didn't work). Oh well. Some people might have memories of dealing with vacuum tubes. I have my memory sticks, where I have a 30 pin simm with an american flag from an SE/30 on a key ring around here somewhere. I think it was 256k, from upgrading from 1 meg to 4 megs. Ahhhh, back in the days of a 2400 baud modem. IMO having some upgradability would improve the lifespan of Apple products and thus be good for the environment. But I see Apple's side too, even if the current push is for even tighter control than the sometimes very limited add-on choices of the past. Life moves on. Even if it's sometimes hard to let go of the past.
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,554
|
Post by mark on Nov 2, 2023 8:19:58 GMT -8
It's not just a matter of simplification. If you provide upgradability, like using slots that cards are inserted, you lose quite a lot. In fact, you lose a lot of the "Apple"-ness of the product. For example, if you allow memory to be added via external bus (a slot with a card), then you lose a few important things, one, you lose the tightly tied processor memory link, that slows down memory access, and two, likely slows down even further when external memory is added because the bus has to run max at the lowest high speed of any device connected to the bus. Next you may add "cheap" memory cards that don't quite behave entirely properly, that'll slow things down even more as the processor has to make allowance for such things. Three, your memory controller gets more complex because it has more sources, more speeds, more exceptions, etc. That also slows things down. I could easily see a mac running at 50% or 25% or even at 12.5% of the speed with external memory added. Other important things that are lost by allowing slots for customization are: * You lose the svelte form factor because you need to leave a bunch of empty space for cards. * You need to add extra fans to the design in case people insert heavy duty expansion cards. Adds noise as well. * You depend on people inserting cards properly, and doing all sorts of additional customized settings on their own. Adding other customizing cards often have even worse implications. Sometimes they are "mostly" compatible, but not entirely and then every once in a while something weird happens. There's no way for Apple to test every single combination of external 3rd party hardware. Especially when said hardware will come out AFTER the Apple product (mac, in this case) has shipped. Then Apple has to field TONS of calls caused by issues related to 3rd party cards. They have to educate their customer service people with a lot more information, and information that changes constantly (new 3rd party cards, new 3rd party software, etc). It's essentially an impossible task to do well. In general, it's a terrible idea to allow for upgradability like this for regular users. Too many pitfalls and it invariably ends up making the product slower, more cumbersome, and trouble prone. This is especially true for Macs that are designed ON the leading edge of many technologies (3nm for example). Like I said above, you end up losing a lot of the "Apple"-ness of the product. While this is all true, and included in my post, it wasn't that long ago that Apple offered the ability to add extra PCI cards to many of its systems, and memory cards to nearly all of its systems. But with the move to Apple processors with on-board memory, added memory has gone away. It wouldn't be an impossible task to have it there, just as Apple made the hybrid SSD/HD drives. But it is an added complexity that just doesn't make sense for them to do, possibly at this time but likely for the foreseeable future. Like I explained, it's not that it's impossible, it's that it'll slow everything else down. You can't add RAM to a Mac Pro with any M-series chip in it. The PCIe slots are for other things (like SSDs, etc). The lifespan of Apple products is far longer than any competitive product already. The additional juice isn't worth the squeeze anymore, especially when most of the additional efforts would have negative affects on other things (for example, adding RAM expansion vi slot would slow down all RAM).
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,649
|
Post by 4aapl on Nov 2, 2023 16:33:21 GMT -8
The lifespan of Apple products is far longer than any competitive product already. The additional juice isn't worth the squeeze anymore, especially when most of the additional efforts would have negative affects on other things (for example, adding RAM expansion vi slot would slow down all RAM). Of course PCI slots aren't for memory. Mostly. The Radius Rockets were via a slot (NUBUS?), so it is possible. But that's not what I was saying. But saying adding memory would slow all RAM down is just wrong. Just as an L1/L2/L3 cache, or memory vs virtual memory, or a hybrid drive, or local storage vs the cloud, you have a tiered system. The most used stuff and most likely to be used stuff goes in the fastest area. This isn't rocket science. Stuff stored in "2nd tier memory" would be faster than accessing it from virtual memory, just as accessing it from a SSD is faster than a HD, and a HD is faster than going to the cloud. It just comes down to added value. Does Apple, or their customers, want this enough to make it worth looking into? Right now Apple doesn't offer this, so that would be a "NO".
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,554
|
Post by mark on Nov 3, 2023 6:33:47 GMT -8
IMO having some upgradability would improve the lifespan of Apple products The lifespan of Apple products is far longer than any competitive product already. The additional juice isn't worth the squeeze anymore, especially when most of the additional efforts would have negative affects on other things (for example, adding RAM expansion vi slot would slow down all RAM). Of course PCI slots aren't for memory. Mostly. The Radius Rockets were via a slot (NUBUS?), so it is possible. But that's not what I was saying. But saying adding memory would slow all RAM down is just wrong. Just as an L1/L2/L3 cache, or memory vs virtual memory, or a hybrid drive, or local storage vs the cloud, you have a tiered system. The most used stuff and most likely to be used stuff goes in the fastest area. This isn't rocket science. Stuff stored in "2nd tier memory" would be faster than accessing it from virtual memory, just as accessing it from a SSD is faster than a HD, and a HD is faster than going to the cloud. I didn't explain properly. I am referring ONLY to "adding RAM". In other words, you buy an M-based (M2, M3) Mac Pro with 32GB of RAM and you want to expand it from 32GB to 64GB. ANY solution that is implemented to add memory cards via slot onto the memory bus will slow down all the RAM in the system. Based on everything I've read about it, that is an inherent quality of the new M-series "tightly coupled" memory controllers. I could be wrong because Apple never explicitly (publicly) stated this, but it is what I surmise from whatever information is available about their recent M-series of chips. In fact, since the early M1 Apple presentation, they don't even mention the new memory controller architecture anymore (some people apparently hacked M1 systems and swapped out the RAM, but it turned out to not work very well because they became unreliable). You can add all the HDa and SSDs you want, and even all the "RAM disks" you want, but that is an entirely different thing than the traditional upgrading of RAM (say from 32GB to 64GB). Maybe it's a language issue? Memory versus Storage? To me, memory is RAM, on a dedicated bus that is directly connected to the processor, and runs as fast as the architecture allows. Storage is something that is connected by all sorts of interfaces, dedicated or not. and runs at varying speeds depending on the device being used for storage.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,649
|
Post by 4aapl on Nov 3, 2023 7:53:57 GMT -8
I didn't explain properly. I am referring ONLY to "adding RAM". In other words, you buy an M-based (M2, M3) Mac Pro with 32GB of RAM and you want to expand it from 32GB to 64GB. ANY solution that is implemented to add memory cards via slot onto the memory bus will slow down all the RAM in the system. Based on everything I've read about it, that is an inherent quality of the new M-series "tightly coupled" memory controllers. I could be wrong because Apple never explicitly (publicly) stated this, but it is what I surmise from whatever information is available about their recent M-series of chips. In fact, since the early M1 Apple presentation, they don't even mention the new memory controller architecture anymore (some people apparently hacked M1 systems and swapped out the RAM, but it turned out to not work very well because they became unreliable). You can add all the HDa and SSDs you want, and even all the "RAM disks" you want, but that is an entirely different thing than the traditional upgrading of RAM (say from 32GB to 64GB). Maybe it's a language issue? Memory versus Storage? To me, memory is RAM, on a dedicated bus that is directly connected to the processor, and runs as fast as the architecture allows. Storage is something that is connected by all sorts of interfaces, dedicated or not. and runs at varying speeds depending on the device being used for storage. You explained it fine. You're right that unless a method was added to differentiate the memory, that putting slower memory together with faster memory would make things have to run slower. If you have a pack of hikers that have to stay right with each other, then the limit is the slowest hiker, even if you optimize that case by putting the slowest first. But instead if you split the hikers up into 2 groups, you can have the fast ones head off first, and maybe that lets them take on extra tasks like finding the route, finding a rest/lunch/camp spot, or dealing with other issues. This is the same with L1/L2/L3 cache, and would be the same with multiple levels of memory, as it is now with memory and virtual memory. Adding an extra class of memory would have some sort of overhead, but it is the same sort of thing that is done in various areas across the computer already (cache, SSD/HD, etc). And it's not completely new to do this, even on a Mac. Already there have been multiple USB controllers that at least used to be the same way, dumbing down to the lowest speed. But with multiple, that let the 2 ports on a controller that both had USB 2.0 run at full speed, whereas the other controller with a USB 2.0 and a USB 1 device ran at the slower speed. But more directly, there have been systems with 4 or more memory slots that have specifically said that it runs faster with matched pairs, even if the pairs were mismatched with each other. So it said you could put your better memory A pair in slots 1 and 3, while putting your more standard but still supported B pair in slots 2 and 4. I don't remember what the claimed speed difference was, but this specifically was saying that having the slower pair didn't slow down the faster pair, as long as you paired them up properly. If instead you put pair A in slots 1 and 2, and pair B in slots 3 and 4, then it would run at the slower speed. All this is to say that while it is possible, Apple currently has chosen to not go that route, even if there was some hack on M1 systems that people managed. If Apple changes its preference, I don't have any doubt that they could make it work. While I would like to have the ability to add memory in the future if the needs of my computer change, Apple has kept the standard memory configs and the OS requirements steady for a long time. While I feel the "right to upgrade" is a pretty close second to the "right to repair", especially in terms of elongating the lifespan of a device so we have just a little less e-waste in the world, I respect that Apple has made an educated decision on this, thinking not just of themselves but of the typical user too. And that's not something you can definitely say about all companies. Thanks Apple
|
|