Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
8GB RAM in M3 MacBook Pro Proves the Bottleneck in Real-World Tests
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Never said that. It's a simple fact that RAM has some disadvantages compared to unified memory, and more RAM can help close the performance gap. If you doubt that, a simple Google search can yield some good technical discussions.
Going to upgradeable RAM could lessen some of the advantages of unified memory.
As for "Macs 'need less RAM'", as I have pointed out, memory needs are based on use case.
So are you saying 8 or 16 or whatever GB of stick RAM, used in upgradable devices, and unified memory have exactly the same performance? For example, the GPU/CPU can share the full amount of ram and do not need to split it? Have the same bandwidth at similar price points?
While unified memory is still RAM, it is a very different implementation than the traditional RAM you stick in a slot on the mobo.
Last edited:
It's the "so more RAM is needed" part that's largely untrue.
It's partially true in that you can use less RAM as you need to hold less volatile data in memory. But if you have big chunks of data, having more capacity is still valuable.
It's partially true in that you can use less RAM as you need to hold less volatile data in memory. But if you have big chunks of data, having more capacity is still valuable.
He wasn’t saying that nobody needs more unified memory or RAM to hold more data, he was saying that Unified Memory is more efficient at holding said data, so more conventional RAM would be required to hold the same amount of data. Which is true according to everything I’ve read about RAM and unified memory.
And for the record, I can’t find any evidence of supposed “socketable” LPDDR5 being used in any actual product. LPCAMM2 hasn’t been widely adopted, nor is it likely to due to costs since a specialized socket is required that’s more expensive than conventional sockets and less widely produced, and according to the sites reporting on it that I’ve read (which aren’t particularly friendly toward Apple btw) it still isn’t as efficient or fast and reliable as soldered LPDDR5. This makes sense to me, as any extra bus connection will reduce the signal speeds and introduce potential interruptions if the connection shifts or moves at all, while soldered unified memory doesn’t use a bus connection, doesn’t suffer from potential interference and interruptions due to lost connections, and is more efficient than conventional RAM systems just by the nature of the CPU and GPU having direct access to the data with no mapping or duplication required. Most of the articles I’m seeing about it are saying that it will likely never see widespread adoption because it’s too niche and doesn’t offer enough advantages to computer manufacturers vs soldered RAM or conventional RAM cards that are cheaper and more common.
It's kind of important to bear in mind that when someone claims there is a 'speed advantage' or 'it's faster', technically it is true even if the difference is only 0.01%. Maybe we're talking about MaSsIvE GaInZZZZ in the 1% range, but there's very very little literature on the subject. The big companies probably don't want there to be, either.
It doesn’t matter, because the “socketable LPDDR5” you claim is here and ready to use isn’t likely to ever be adopted by the computer industry. And the very nature of soldered RAM has some advantages over RAM cards, even if you think RAM cards have some advantages in terms of “upgradability”. And as we’ve already covered numerous times, average users aren’t going to be lining up to crack open their computers to swap RAM themselves. Most customers buy the amount of RAM they want or need in the first place.
Soldered in memory is now acceptable. Not universally acceptable, but it is acceptable by wide swathes of the consumer community. Computer manufacturers (Including Apple) are not going to go back to socketed memory. Soldered memory is just too profitable.
Home computers (Like many other electronic home appliances and even automobiles) are less assessable for DIY modifications. This isn’t just an Apple thing.
Home computers (Like many other electronic home appliances and even automobiles) are less assessable for DIY modifications. This isn’t just an Apple thing.
Probably closer to non-socketed than to SO-DIMM, but it's unclear what you're trying to prove.
I don't see how Apple factors into this. It's an industry-wide progression.
I mean, if you think you can build a laptop with comparable memory bandwidth and energy use using SO-DIMM, or that it's worth socketing LPDDR, knock yourself out, but neither Apple's SoCs nor Qualcomm's nor Intel's chiplets are headed that direction. (No, I don't care about AMD laptops.) It seems like a "OK, but x86 is almost as good"-type discussion. Which, OK? But I'm not going to get a new Mac with x86, nor is Apple going to go back to the 2000s' era where you could swap the RAM. But I will get more RAM in the base config, sooner or later, and we should lobby them to make it sooner rather than later.
The discussion of "yeah, but by soldering, you make it basically impossible to upgrade" strikes me as quite off-topic.
It isn't just profit, though.
Laptops have always progressed towards being more integrated. Apple may be particularly radical in that respect, but others mostly follow, with few exceptions such as Framework (whose entire brand revolves around this).
Yes, tight integration is also more profitable, but it also reduces wear and tear (therefore fixing the most common support issues laptop users run into), and increases power efficiency. If a phone should have an SoC, with the RAM soldered, why shouldn't a laptop? If the L3 cache should be soldered, why shouldn't the RAM? For people who still need more customizability, desktop towers and nursing homes exist.
It is something of a tolerated racket- it's cheaper to build and allows companies to effectively extort large sums of money from us they otherwise couldn't.
It's been a bitter pill to swallow, which is why there's been a lot of exaggeration about the benefits, never accompanied by verifiable numbers. Plenty of deflection too- for example the exaggeration of the importance of bandwidth, which Apple would later change their mind on and reel back in on certain models.
Back to the VT100 era.
Seriously, while there are many users that would be true, so are many that will need storage/cpu for the foreseeable future.
wtf.
and how does this matter in real life? 16gb of slow ram will always be better than 8gb of fast ram. It's been known since the '80s.
RAM chips are still much faster than present-day SSDs. The vast majority of memory-related problems in the computing world are related to quantity, not speed
ok, and how would I install a RAM card if I had a mb pro? oh wait...
Sorry, but it looks like people care more about my opinions than yours because I'm not looking to defend a company by going against the flow.
Most people don’t care about antique RAM cards and cracking open their computers to try to replace them without damaging the computer….
No, you’re just looking to vilify a company over offering a RAM spec you don’t like… 😂. And Mac customers shouldn’t care about your opinion (and most don’t since you’re just one rando on an internet forum) since you don’t even own an Apple device. It would be like me reviewing Ford vehicles and not owning a single Ford… You clearly don’t like Apple, and seem to just be here to troll an Apple fan forum…
Honestly I’m pleasantly surprised. I thought for sure we would be at 12GB base, but perhaps all the AI tools being built is taking up more resources than I anticipated.
But but but!! The price should increase, since the amount of ram went up! /s
Told you so....
8GB is going to be a joke in a few years time....
/Edit: Mac Mini also starts with 16GB without increasing the price.
Apple has done its tests (and read these forums?): 8 GB is not enough anymore. Mark my word: these things will sell like hot cakes.
Last edited:
Better yet would have been to read the writing on the walls in 2019 with crypto + initial pandemic fears + initial AI hype and to buy the largest VRAM GPU you could, and the highest RAM devices you could.
And maybe throw the rest into nvidia stock