Technology

59672 readers

2914 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Even Apple finally admits that 8GB RAM isn't enough (www.xda-developers.com)

submitted 5 months ago by sverit@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.world

263 comments fedilink hide all child comments

There were a number of exciting announcements from Apple at WWDC 2024, from macOS Sequoia to Apple Intelligence. However, a subtle addition to Xcode 16 — the development environment for Apple platforms, like iOS and macOS — is a feature called Predictive Code Completion. Unfortunately, if you bought into Apple's claim that 8GB of unified memory was enough for base-model Apple silicon Macs, you won't be able to use it. There's a memory requirement for Predictive Code Completion in Xcode 16, and it's the closest thing we'll get from Apple to an admission that 8GB of memory isn't really enough for a new Mac in 2024.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

It's technically a bit faster, but yeah, I think charging more is the bigger motivation.

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Companies primarily make decisions to maximise the profitability of someone and it's never the consumer.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

It's a bit first but if their primary motivation was performance improvements they wouldn't be soldering 16 GB.

If you're going to weld shoes to your feet, you better at least make sure that they're good shoes.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Why not? There is a performance benefit to being closer to the CPU, and soldering gets you a lot closer to the CPU. That's a fact.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah but if you're only putting 8 GB of RAM on then you're also going to be constantly querying the hard drive. So any performance gain you get from soldering, is lost by going all the way to the hard drive every 3 microseconds.

It's only better performance on paper in reality there's no real benefit. If you can run an application entirely entirely within the 8 GB of RAM, and assuming you're not running anything else, then maybe you get better performance.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

And that's the idea. Soldering memory is an engineering decision. How much to solder is a marketing decision. Since users can't easily add more, marketing can upsell on more RAM.

It's not "on paper," the RAM itself is performing better vs socketed RAM. Whether the system runs better depends on the configuration, as in, did you order enough RAM.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 0 points 5 months ago

I can't tell if you're a stooge or if you really think that. I hope you are stooge, because otherwise that's a really stupid position you've decided to take and you clearly don't actually understand the issue.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago

Sounds like one of those rare cases where engineering and marketing might agree on something.