Alvie Stoddard
DavidSchaub
carozas
Julian KussmanDavidSchaub (@[email protected])
@[email protected] @[email protected] @carozas I roughy answered that in this post: https://mstdn.social/@dschaub/111813544514647792 ... around a TB of memory, which is obviously not needed. It isn't that the slope needs to continue at that rate, it is just that it can't stay flat forever.
I roughy answered that in this post:
https://mstdn.social/@dschaub/111813544514647792
... around a TB of memory, which is obviously not needed.
It isn't that the slope needs to continue at that rate, it is just that it can't stay flat forever.
DavidSchaub (@[email protected])
Attached: 1 image @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] Around the max RAM capacity of John's Mac: about 1TB of RAM. In no way am I saying that Apple should have maintained that curve... but if Apple had bumped the base RAM up to 16 GB by now, I wouldn't have bothered posting anything. :)
๊ฎ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ซ๐ฏ๐ฑ๐จ๐ฑ๐ง
Justin ๐ธThat's really hard.
At any time there is a huge range consumers can pay for RAM, due to type, functionality, density, speed, latency, etc...
We have no idea what kind of deals Apple gets for its RAM.
The chips are fairly standard, but DDR5X hasn't been really consumer RAM either.
The error bars might be wider than the chart.
Joseph HumfreyGiven that most Apple Intelligence features are supposed to work (if not well) on 8GB Mac models, I think we can trust that that isn't the case?
Eugene KimWelcome to the new normal.
I'm sure in the 2030s we'll be complaining about 16GB not being enough, but that's next decade's problem.
Dr Lee A. Christie
Magnus AhltorpDavidSchaub (@[email protected])
Attached: 1 image @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] Around the max RAM capacity of John's Mac: about 1TB of RAM. In no way am I saying that Apple should have maintained that curve... but if Apple had bumped the base RAM up to 16 GB by now, I wouldn't have bothered posting anything. :)
Leon Overweel@dschaub love it! If I may share one nitpick: I think this chart would be even better if the lines continued horizontally until the next data point and then went straight up. (In plotly you can achieve this with line_shape=โhvโ.) It more accurately represents what happened, since there was no slow climb from one level to the next but rather a jump.
You are absolutely correct that slopes are sub-optimal.
It would still be wrong as it treats each year as a single atomic point of time.
Next one I build, I'll consider that change.