Technology

59534 readers

3168 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

741

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

submitted 4 months ago by sverit@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.world

277 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

[+] Aux@lemmy.world -6 points 4 months ago (31 children)

Is Electron that bad? Really? I have Slack open right now with two servers and it takes around 350MB of RAM. Not that bad, considering that every other colleague thinks that posting dumb shit GIFs into work chats is cool. That's definitely nowhere close to Firefox, Chrome and WebStorm eating multiple gigs each.

[–] lastweakness@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago (26 children)

Yes, it really is that bad. 350 MBs of RAM for something that could otherwise have taken less than 100? That isn't bad to you? And also, it's not just RAM. It's every resource, including CPU, which is especially bad with Electron.

I don't really mind Electron myself because I have enough resources. But pretending the lack of optimization isn't a real problem is just not right.

[+] Aux@lemmy.world -6 points 4 months ago (25 children)

First of all, 350MB is a drop in a bucket. But what's more important is performance, because it affects things like power consumption, carbon emissions, etc. I'd rather see Slack "eating" one gig of RAM and running smoothly on a single E core below boost clocks with pretty much zero CPU use. That's the whole point of having fast memory - so you can cache and pre-render as much as possible and leave it rest statically in memory.

[–] jas0n@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Just wanted to point out that the number 1 performance blocker in the CPU is memory. In the general case, if you're wasting memory, you're wasting CPU. These two things really cannot be talked about in isolation.

[–] Aux@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No, that's the other way round. You either have high CPU load and low memory, or low CPU load and high memory.

[–] jas0n@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I'm not sure what metric you're using to determine this. The bottom line is, if you're trying to get the CPU to really fly, using memory efficiently is just as important (if not more) than the actual instructions you send to it. The reason for this is the high latency required to go out to external memory. This is performance 101.

load more comments (23 replies)

load more comments (27 replies)