8GB RAM in M3 MacBook Pro Proves the Bottleneck in Real-World Tests

[Abazigal]

I hope they stick with 8GB RAM base spec for the M4 Macs. I take these rumors about the base specs for M4 Macs as 16GB with a heavy dose of salt because they’re from the same sources who’ve been whining and crying about 8GB and I think they were claiming similar things before the M3 Macs released.

My guess is that the MBA will still come with a 8gb ram version for the price-conscious users, such as students. Whether that's the M4 model, or an older M3 or even M2 model, I can't say.

Second (and I haven't watched any of those videos), the existence of a Mac with 16gb ram really means just that - that Apple will be selling a Mac with 16gb ram and 512gb storage. It doesn't tell us anything about whether Apple intends to scrap 8gb ram models or not (and M4 iPads do start out with 8gb ram, so in the very least, Apple will still be producing M4 chips with 8gb ram and 256gb storage). It's not really news either; I seem to recall Apple introducing this variant with the M3, meaning you are able to get it directly from third party retailers.

I guess we will see in a couple of weeks?

 

[chucker23n1]

My guess is that the MBA will still come with a 8gb ram version for the price-conscious users, such as students. Whether that's the M4 model, or an older M3 or even M2 model, I can't say.

There would definitely still be an older-gen 8 GiB model for years to come.

It's not really news either; I seem to recall Apple introducing this variant with the M3, meaning you are able to get it directly from third party retailers.

I believe that’s right.

(I also believe it’s perfectly plausible that the $1,599 Pro has 16 now. But as you say, this video provides no evidence either way.)

 

[jlc1978]

Second (and I haven't watched any of those videos), the existence of a Mac with 16gb ram really means just that - that Apple will be selling a Mac with 16gb ram and 512gb storage. It doesn't tell us anything about whether Apple intends to scrap 8gb ram models or not (and M4 iPads do start out with 8gb ram, so in the very least, Apple will still be producing M4 chips with 8gb ram and 256gb storage). It's not really news either; I seem to recall Apple introducing this variant with the M3, meaning you are able to get it directly from third party retailers.

It makes sense for Apple to look at what models often get a BTO and if enough of a certain combo does add it to the inventory for resellers. The breakdown between 8 and 16 GB base model sales could also drive a move to 16.

 

[WeLikeVodka]

I don’t claim to know how to run Apple better than Apple is running itself… I trust they’ll do what they believe they need to in order to succeed. I don’t think I know better than they do what configurations of their products they should be offering…

I believe Apple has their consumers in mind because they have their own interest also in mind. As a business owner myself, you don’t attain success by not caring at all about your customers. Apple consistently scores among the highest for customer satisfaction. That’s part of why people choose to go with Apple over other computer companies in the first place. Because they make a quality product that lasts and offers unique advantages over the competition.

For YOU that may be true that RAM “matters more for longterm functionality“, but that is not true for everyone. You may not care about the quality of display you interact with every day and want to watch shows on, and stream games on, but many many people actually do care about the display quality, battery runtime, and sound system quality. A computer that doesn’t get me through a busy work day is worthless to me. One with a poor quality display that I can’t use for my design work is also useless. You clearly don’t care about these things, but also clearly don’t represent most average customers…

Yeah but you know what you're doing? you're stating your opinion and automatically imply it applies to the average consumer. Guess what, you're a single person.

You don't represent the average consumer either...

The rest of the post is the same raving about computer screens (and implying the other screens are dreadful. You have no proof for this, and screen quality hasn't really been a problem for a few years now on windows laptops).

My phone has 16GB of RAM and it didn't cost a fortune. It's respect for the customer. When you sell a laptop for a luxury price some things are being taken for granted. You might think apple is trying to switch this perception, but all they do is make everyone besides hardcore Apple fans laugh at them.

Of course businesses gain their trust by offering good products, but publicly-traded companies operate much more differently compared to your average business. You stating your opinion as a fact does not change this.

 

[WeLikeVodka]

It's the same with a computer, and for many users 8GB is enough of a fridge.

To use your fridge analogy, the 16GB argument is like someone saying:

"Yes, the fridge works for you today because you only use it to keep things cool and open it a few times. But in the future you may want to buy a lot more stuff and open it every few minutes so you should only be able to buy one 2x as big ; because well, you may need that in 4 or 5 years. It doesn't matter if your current one is fine, because I need a bigger one you do to."



The amount of ram is irrelevant when the battery's dead.

Do food packages increase over time? because that's what apps do with RAM. Meanwhile the coca-cola bottle has the same size as a few years ago.

And if the battery is dead, well get a new one... or if you speak figuratively, power outlets are everywhere. And no they aren't made because windows laptops are the default.

 

[Kal Madda]

Yeah but you know what you're doing? you're stating your opinion and automatically imply it applies to the average consumer. Guess what, you're a single person.

You don't represent the average consumer either...

The rest of the post is the same raving about computer screens (and implying the other screens are dreadful. You have no proof for this, and screen quality hasn't really been a problem for a few years now on windows laptops).

My phone has 16GB of RAM and it didn't cost a fortune. It's respect for the customer. When you sell a laptop for a luxury price some things are being taken for granted. You might think apple is trying to switch this perception, but all they do is make everyone besides hardcore Apple fans laugh at them.

Of course businesses gain their trust by offering good products, but publicly-traded companies operate much more differently compared to your average business. You stating your opinion as a fact does not change this.

I never claimed to represent the average customer. I don’t believe most people in this forum represent the average customer. But I’ve seen polls and such asking average customers what they value most when choosing a computer, and display quality is nearly always at or near the top of that list.

The only one raving is you. You want to pretend that the only part of the $1,400 laptop that matters is the RAM chip, and none of the other expensive cutting-edge hardware (like the high quality display) factors into it’s price point, but that’s a silly notion. And just because YOU don’t think display quality is a problem on cheap Windows craptops doesn’t mean anything. Many others would disagree with you.

If you don’t use Apple devices (and don’t seem to be a fan of Apple as a company either), then why hang out on an Apple fan forum? Apparently you don’t like the iPhone and bought something else, so clearly customers aren’t being held at gunpoint and forced to buy Apple devices. Let people think for themselves rather than telling them what to think. Clearly I and many others are perfectly happy with an 8GB Mac. You aren’t. That’s fine. But why do you feel the need to take away an option that many people like and value, likely to be replaced with a more expensive configuration? Why should we have to pay more for RAM we don’t need? To make you feel better about a device you presumably don’t even own? This is just silly.

 

[AssassuN]

Yeah, eventually when Apple deems it time they will up the base spec, I just hope they don’t up the base spec price for everyone who doesn’t need extra RAM just because of all the whining from the clickbaiters. 👍🏻

Ok if your worry is the price going up, then I totally agree.
My argument was that Apple should make the base spec 16GB WITHOUT raising the price, else we're effectively in the same place.
They already have such a high margin on these products, it would be really tasteless to then raise the price another $100-$200 just for upgrading a component as cheap as RAM.

 

[jlc1978]

Do food packages increase over time? because that's what apps do with RAM. Meanwhile the coca-cola bottle has the same size as a few years ago.

Except, like your fridge example, users who are fine with 8GB are unlikely to find those programs getting bigger; much like your Coke example.

And if the battery is dead, well get a new one... or if you speak figuratively, power outlets are everywhere. And no they aren't made because windows laptops are the default.

And swap memory is always available, even without a power outlet.

 

[Kal Madda]

Except, like your fridge example, users who are fine with 8GB are unlikely to find those programs getting bigger; much like your Coke example.

And swap memory is always available, even without a power outlet.

Exactly! 👍🏻. The softwares I use haven’t notably changed their RAM usage over the last 5 years, why should I assume they will like tomorrow? This makes zero sense.

 

[chucker23n1]

Except, like your fridge example, users who are fine with 8GB are unlikely to find those programs getting bigger;

This is silly. Virtually all software has grown bigger over the years, in disk usage, RAM requirements, and other resource requirements.

 

[jlc1978]

This is silly. Virtually all software has grown bigger over the years, in disk usage, RAM requirements, and other resource requirements.

The key is "virtually" and "over the years." Pages, Numbers, and Keynote run fine with 8GB and likely will for the foreseeable future, as does Mail and Safari. That is a target audience for 8GB machines, and they meet those needs just fine. Even GarageBand and iMovie don't need 16GB. It's all about use case.

We may not agree on this, but in the real world people use 8GB Macs just fine and will continue to do so for years to come.

As I have said, I suspect much of the "16GB should be the minimum, Apple is just greedy" is really code for "I want 16GB at the 8GB price." I suspect if Apple makes 16GB the minimum and raises prices they'd be complaining about a price increase.

16GB is inevitable, but that's not the point, it's 8GB is plenty for many users and machines bought today will last a long time for those users.

Edit: typo

 

[chucker23n1]

The key is "virtually." Pages, Numbers, and Keynote run fine with 8GB and likely will for the foreseeable future, as does Mail and Safari. That is a target audience for 8GB machines, and they meet those needs just fine. Even GarageBand and iMovie don't need 16GB. It's all about use case.

But that wasn't your assertion. It was "unlikely to find those programs getting bigger". I assure you the RAM requirements of Pages, Numbers, and Keynote, Safari, GarageBand, and iMovie are all very different in 2024 than they were when those apps were introduced.

Heck, the first iPhone shipped with 128 MiB RAM, and that ran Safari. That wouldn't be feasible today.

Will the requirements go up within the general lifetime of a Mac? Not dramatically, but yes, they will. That's one of the reasons newer macOS versions drop support for older Macs.

 

[jlc1978]

But that wasn't your assertion. It was "unlikely to find those programs getting bigger". I assure you the RAM requirements of Pages, Numbers, and Keynote, Safari, GarageBand, and iMovie are all very different in 2024 than they were when those apps were introduced.

Heck, the first iPhone shipped with 128 MiB RAM, and that ran Safari. That wouldn't be feasible today.

Will the requirements go up within the general lifetime of a Mac? Not dramatically, but yes, they will.

And that was my point: They may go up but not to the point where a Mac with 8GB today is likely to not be able to run them in the foreseeable future. Look at how many old Macs still run versions today. Not everyone needs teh latest and greates bells an whistles to find a machine useful.

That's one of the reasons newer macOS versions drop support for older Macs.

And look back how far today's OS will run on a Mac. - 2018 and some from 2017. Some are arguing an 8GB Mac will suddenly be unusable in the near future while Apple's history shows that is not the case. Ventura, released in 2022 still gets security updates so, IMHO, it is still a reasonable OS to use.

 

[Kal Madda]

Ok if your worry is the price going up, then I totally agree.
My argument was that Apple should make the base spec 16GB WITHOUT raising the price, else we're effectively in the same place.
They already have such a high margin on these products, it would be really tasteless to then raise the price another $100-$200 just for upgrading a component as cheap as RAM.

I do believe the price would inevitably go up if they upped the base spec, and probably rightfully so. More RAM is more expensive and adds more value to the machine. Since Apple is a business, I don’t expect them to take losses on their profit. Especially when nobody really knows what kind of margins they’re even making on these base-spec units. The 14” MacBook Pros used to start at $2,000, and has now dropped all the way down to $1,400, so the margins they’re making on these cheaper base-spec configurations is presumably already lower than they were making before. So I don’t agree that we should assume they should be packing more RAM cost into the already cheaper base-spec units at that incredibly low price. I’m sure Apple will do what they believe to be best for their business and their customers.

 

[henkie]

I do believe the price would inevitably go up if they upped the base spec, and probably rightfully so. More RAM is more expensive and adds more value to the machine. Since Apple is a business, I don’t expect them to take losses on their profit. Especially when nobody really knows what kind of margins they’re even making on these base-spec units. The 14” MacBook Pros used to start at $2,000, and has now dropped all the way down to $1,400, so the margins they’re making on these cheaper base-spec configurations is presumably already lower than they were making before. So I don’t agree that we should assume they should be packing more RAM cost into the already cheaper base-spec units at that incredibly low price. I’m sure Apple will do what they believe to be best for their business and their customers.

First, ram is dirty cheap. Second, why do prices do not go up after a generational upgrade of the cpu/gpu? Third, why bother upgrading even from m1 to m3, if the ram is not upgraded: the ram will be the bottleneck before the cpu/GPU will give the user a noticeable difference. That is also the “complaint”: why would you buy a 8GB M3, if a M2 8GB is a lot cheaper (target audience does not need an M3 if 8GB suffices). You simply hit a wall in terms of performance with 8GB in lots of user cases. Hence, I bet the m4 will come with 16gb: an m4 8GB simply does not make sense with all the ai stuff coming out: you will hit a wall very soon, so why bother spending hundreds or even a thousand more for a negligible performance difference. Additionally, didn’t the base m3pro mbp get a “free” upgrade from 16–>18gb?

 

[Heat_Fan89]

First, ram is dirty cheap. Second, why do prices do not go up after a generational upgrade of the cpu/gpu? Third, why bother upgrading even from m1 to m3, if the ram is not upgraded: the ram will be the bottleneck before the cpu/GPU will give the user a noticeable difference. That is also the “complaint”: why would you buy a 8GB M3, if a M2 8GB is a lot cheaper (target audience does not need an M3 if 8GB suffices). You simply hit a wall in terms of performance with 8GB in lots of user cases. Hence, I bet the m4 will come with 16gb: an m4 8GB simply does not make sense with all the ai stuff coming out: you will hit a wall very soon, so why bother spending hundreds or even a thousand more for a negligible performance difference. Additionally, didn’t the base m3pro mbp get a “free” upgrade from 16–>18gb?

The bottom line is regardless of what any thinks, RAM is an up-sell strategy for Apple, so is storage. You can either buy more RAM or choose not to play the game, either by not purchasing anything from them or buying the base model.

I'm hip to Apple's up-sell games so I always buy the base model. I purchased my M2 Mini and i've been extremely happy with its performance. I identified the up-sell shenanigans and decided NOT to go along with Apple's game. My M2 Mini will lose support along with every other M2 Mini memory and storage configuration.

If Apple releases the M4 Mini this month, it will be for the base model as well.

 

[chucker23n1]

I do believe the price would inevitably go up if they upped the base spec, and probably rightfully so. More RAM is more expensive and adds more value to the machine. Since Apple is a business, I don’t expect them to take losses on their profit.

Famously, the MacBook Air doubled in price when the move to the M1 significantly improved its performance.

 

[Kal Madda]

Famously, the MacBook Air doubled in price when the move to the M1 significantly improved its performance.

I don’t think it doubled in price, but even if we say it did, that has no bearing on what I’m saying. We know that usually when Apple has upped the base specs in the past, the price goes up as well. They don’t give away higher specs for free. And I’m fine with that. They’re a business. But I don’t want to pay more just for the sake of paying more because some whiners on YouTube made a big deal about the current base-spec option. Why should those of us who find 8GB to be more than enough for our needs have to pay more for excess RAM we don’t need or want? For status? So some people can feel better about a product they haven’t even bought and aren’t intending to buy because they’re sold on Windows? What’s the good reason here for our cheaper option that works perfectly fine for us to not exist? Because some people can’t get over the idea of not buying the absolute cheapest configuration? Hopefully Apple doesn’t move over to 16GB in the M4 base-spec due to all these entitled whiners on YouTube.

 

[jlc1978]

I always buy the base model. I purchased my M2 Mini and i've been extremely happy with its performance.

Well, accordingly to some posters here you made a mistake in buying a base model because 8GB of Ram is not enough to be useful. Your machine will soon be unable to perform well, just ask them.

(For the sarcasm impaired, I am being sarcastic, as I fully agree with the posters comment the machine is meets his needs with 8GB)

First, ram is dirty cheap.

The price of components is irrelevant to product pricing. If Apple decides it can raise the price and still meet sales targets, it should. If not, it shouldn't. Pricing is a demand issue, component costs a margin question.

Second, why do prices do not go up after a generational upgrade of the cpu/gpu?

Apple decided not to, for reasons known but to them.

Apple' pricing on Airs went from 999 to 1199 M1->M2 and then the M2 went to 999 with the M3 at 1099. I suspect 999 is a key price point as an entry level machine and the M3 may drop to that with a new M4 at a slightly higher price point.

Third, why bother upgrading even from m1 to m3, if the ram is not upgraded: the ram will be the bottleneck before the cpu/GPU will give the user a noticeable difference.

You are assuming programs with low ram requirements will not benefit from a faster cpu, and that a faster cpu will not overcome any performance impact from using swap memory. I suspect the benefits of a faster cpu with only 8GB will be very use case specific.

That is also the “complaint”: why would you buy a 8GB M3, if a M2 8GB is a lot cheaper (target audience does not need an M3 if 8GB suffices).

If an M2 meets their needs, a user should just buy an M2 unless they are worried about the EOL dates.

You simply hit a wall in terms of performance with 8GB in lots of user cases.

But not all, and those are the target for an 8GB model at a lower price point.

Hence, I bet the m4 will come with 16gb: an m4 8GB simply does not make sense with all the ai stuff coming out:

No one is arguing future models will stay at 8GB, just that todays 8GB models are fine for some use cases and will ccontinue to be for a while going forward.

you will hit a wall very soon, so why bother spending hundreds or even a thousand more for a negligible performance difference.

At some point so will 16GB. If Apple thinks 16GB is required for the new models, they will put in 16GB. But that is separate from the utility of 8GB machines for some users.

Additionally, didn’t the base m3pro mbp get a “free” upgrade from 16–>18gb?

Which is irrelevant to whether 8GB is enough for some users.

 

[chucker23n1]

We know that usually when Apple has upped the base specs in the past, the price goes up as well.

No. Most spec bumps come at the same price tag as before. An iPhone 16 doesn’t cost more than the iPhone 15 did when it was introduced, despite having a SoC two generations newer, and a third more RAM.

The MacBook Air M3 doesn’t cost more than the M2 did when it was introduced.

 

[Kal Madda]

No. Most spec bumps come at the same price tag as before. An iPhone 16 doesn’t cost more than the iPhone 15 did when it was introduced, despite having a SoC two generations newer, and a third more RAM.

The MacBook Air M3 doesn’t cost more than the M2 did when it was introduced.

There are many cases where Apple upped the starting cost when they made a spec bump. It was either the iPhone 13 or 14 I believe where they upped the starting price by at least $100 when they upped the base storage configuration to 128GB. There have been several other similar cases where Apple upped the price for a spec bump. The A-Series and M-Series chips are upgraded yearly, but when the base storage and RAM specs have been changed, there’s generally been a price change as far as I’ve seen.

 

[webkit]

Famously, the MacBook Air doubled in price when the move to the M1 significantly improved its performance.

Doubled in price when? Where did you get this? I thought the M1 MacBook Air had the same $999 starting price as the Intel model it replaced.

 

[webkit]

There are many cases where Apple upped the starting cost when they made a spec bump. It was either the iPhone 13 or 14 I believe where they upped the starting price by at least $100 when they upped the base storage configuration to 128GB.

Apple upped the base storage of the "regular" iPhone 13 to 128GB but the $829 starting price remained the same as what the "regular" iPhone 12 with 64GB had been. Twice the storage with no price increase.

When Apple upped the base storage of the 15 Pro Max to 256GB, the cheaper $1,099 128GB option was no longer available.

 

[chucker23n1]

Doubled in price when? Where did you get this? I thought the M1 MacBook Air had the same $999 starting price as the Intel model it replaced.

I thought the sarcasm was fairly obvious.

 

[Unami]

As low as memory costs are now, why would Apple cheap out like this?

So they can upsell people to more RAM they need anyway for an outrageous price - and claim that their hampered base model starts at "only" $xxxx. If they just put the 16GB in the base model and charge $20 more, they'd even make a little more profit on that machine - but why settle for a little, if you can dupe people into paying $200 for something that's worth less than $20?