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

[richie510]

There are several issues with this video, and several issues with the release from Apple.

Regarding the video: yes if you do things that use more RAM, the one with more RAM will work better. A better comparison would have been a Widows machine with 16GB of RAM with similar multitasking going on. It is valuable to note that the higher RAM model was just faster out of the box. Finally, likely most of the buyers of the 8GB model would never benefit from 16GB of RAM, they are just not that kind of user.

Regarding Apple: it is about time they pumped up the base RAM and base storage. They appear to have done that with the storage starting at 512GB. For most users who would consider the 8GB version, the 512GB SSD is far more valuable. Apple gets some massive extra markups on storage and memory upgrades. As other have mentioned, as a shareholder, this does benefit me personally. As a user, it sometimes feels a little shifty. They need to find that balance by not getting too far behind the "shifty curve".

As we saw with the 15 pro max, Apple removed the generally inadequate 128GB version, but just forced everyone to pay the $100 tax for the thing that should be standard.

An option that I think Apple should consider for these "8GB versions" is to gather up a bunch of binned 8GB memory chips that they can get for cheap that only work with 4GB enabled and make the base model 12 GB. I would say that a 12GB Mac would be equivalent or more capable than a 16GB Windows machine with a straight face. But I cannot do the same for 8->16.

 

[jlc1978]

I hate to repeat myself but...

Not according to Apple. They boldly stated 8GB RAM is the same as a PC with 16GB RAM.

Not really. Per MacWorld:

As spotted by MacRumors, Bochers was asked about the 8GB in the entry-level MacBook Pro in an interview with Lin YiLYi on the Chinese-language video-sharing site Bilibili and he defended Apple’s decision: “8GB on an M3 MacBook Pro is probably analogous to 16GB on other systems. We just happen to be able to use it much more efficiently.”

As Borchers continues, “This is the place where I think people need to see beyond the specs, and actually go and look beyond the capabilities, and listen to trusted people like you who have actually used the systems.”

What was said, and how people interpret it, are two different things.

 

[Miha_v]

Another low-quality clickbait from that channel, which doesn't know what they're talking about. Every configuration has a bottleneck.

Would you call the base M chip a bottleneck too?

Need more? Buy more. Simple as that. Not everyone needs 16 GB.

It's a great channel and this review was absolutely needed, as it clearly shows where base model lacks the performance (in fact, much more then some of us thought). And anyone buying laptops at this price should take a look to avoid making a mistake.

 

[Ifti]

8GB is really only for people looking for a very light use machine - casual browsing, or maybe students doing basic assignment creation etc....
I'd probably get one for my daughter and her studies. I think it would do her use case fine.

 

[Kiwamu]

Of course the tests were made with professional apps. For the vast majority of users 8GB is plenty for web browsing, email, videos, etc. So why should that majority of users pay for the extra build-in RAM that they don’t need? Professional user should already know that need more RAM and order accordingly.

Once again the straw man argument for more base RAM and at no extra cost either. Horse manure on that.

For those usecases you can save even more by buying the base M1!

 

[0339327]

It's no different from all other corporations. Apple's primary concern is its shareholders.

It's very different.

A company can choose long term relationship building, by consistently and deliberately choosing to put out a quality product. Not just because this is good for the long-term profitability, but because, as Steve once put it, you want to put out products that you would love!

This does not necessarily require dismissing profit. It may require a slightly reduced profit margin; we do this in our company, focusing on delivering a quality, reliable product for our customers, yet, remaining profitable.

When Steve returned in the 90s, his initial focus was killing whatever Apple could not deliver excellence on. The result: For every dollar invested in Apple in January 1997, when Steve returned, and held until Tim took over, in 2011, delivered a staggering $7,000 for the share holder.

In the 13 years since Tim took over, the growth has slowed to 1,200%, which, while still respectable, is little different from Microsoft (1200%), Google (1000%), Meta (1500%), and others in the Tech industry. In short, while Tim's Apple has maintained a great return to shareholders, it doesn't come close to the returns of years prior. Even if you remove the early years, and just focus on Apple from the release of the iPhone, until Steve's departure, just four years, the return is still over 300%, similar to Tim's return, however this was despite the biggest recession in US history.

Of course there are other factors, such as the maturation of micro technology and smart phones, people becoming more reliant on mobile computing, and other factors. Yet, it's still hard to explain away the stark difference in leadership methods.

Tim is a great CEO, probably one of, it not the best of our current generation. He is not a product guy, however, and his primary focus has always been financials, and doing so comes at a cost: The longterm customer relationships.

I have been an Apple guy since I was a child and, in my work, I've owned every iteration of the PowerMac (Mac Pro), PowerBook (MBP) and iMac. And, our office has moved almost completely to Mac since my coming on board. I can't understand why Apple is jeopardizing relationships like this by delivering sub-par products (bug infested software, premature hardware, sunsetting valued products like the 27" iMac) and overpricing everything else, just to save a few dollars. It doesn't cost Apple much to make the base line 512 / 16. Probably no more than $50 / device, yet, they put these few dollars ahead of building lasting relationships with the client.

Eventually, this will catch up with them. We are already looking at the CBA of moving our entire organization to Windows and sunsetting out entire Mac portfolio.

 

[MichaelAdam]

So if 8 is 16 what 16 is ? … Seriouly Apple stop the propaganda and give us the real deal …

 

[boak]

It's a great channel and this review was absolutely needed, as it clearly shows where base model lacks the performance (in fact, much more then some of us thought). And anyone buying laptops at this price should take a look to avoid making a mistake.

All base models lack performance compared to models that have higher specs.

Absolutely needed review, indeed.

 

[Asthmatic Kitty]

The (justified) outcry around the 8GB base feels like it's reached a level now where Apple will surely change course soon — I'd be amazed if the M4 MacBook Pro doesn't start with at least 12GB. It's like when the 16GB base storage on the iPhone reached a certain level and they caved with the (I think) iPhone 7. All this bad press can't be worth it to their bottom line.

 

[boak]

Regarding Apple: it is about time they pumped up the base RAM and base storage. They appear to have done that with the storage starting at 512GB. For most users who would consider the 8GB version, the 512GB SSD is far more valuable. Apple gets some massive extra markups on storage and memory upgrades. As other have mentioned, as a shareholder, this does benefit me personally. As a user, it sometimes feels a little shifty. They need to find that balance by not getting too far behind the "shifty curve".

Yeah I think Apple wanted to increase the ASP and the bean counters decided that a 8/512 base is better than 16/256.

 

[s004aws]

There you go, bring facts into an internet argument.

Some people want a powerful machine at an entry level price, and because Apple doesn't do it there is somehow a giant conspiracy behind it aimed at them and rant about the unfairness.

The bottom line, as you point out, is buy the machine that has the power to do what you want. 8GB of RAM is plenty for many users, especially those that just want a few more features than an Air but where a base Air would still be powerful enough for their needs.



Then you buy a new car and learn to better anticipate future needs.

I buy Pro machines and I expect to pay for them. Asking $2,000+ more than competing options for the comparable Apple offering is not the way to make a sale, especially in an economy headed for a major crash. Its no wonder Mac sales are down very significantly.

 

[neliason]

It is ridiculous that a Pro model to start with this little RAM. But, as a consolation, at least Apple hasn’t increased their rip off RAM upgrade prices. They’ve been charging $200 for an extra 8 GB of RAM for years.

 

[CarAnalogy]

It's not a lie, but the validity of the conclusion drawn from the testing can and should be questioned. Anyone can pick memory intensive programs to prove more memory is better and that entry level machines may not perform as well as higher spec'd ones. It ignores that not all users will run those programs, and those that do probably know they need a more powerful machine. All they have done, IMHO, is decided on a conclusion and they cherry picked testing to "prove" it.

It's like comparing two trucks towing a heavy trailer, one with and one without a heavy duty towing packaging, and then say "See, all trucks need a heavy duty towing package because the one without damaged the transmission after towing the heavy trailer 500 miles at interstate speeds..."

Alternatively, one could do a comparison of a professional typist opening, typing, and closing a long document on a 8GB vs 16GB machine and when the times are the same say "No one needs 16GB..."

I do understand that perspective. It certainly was an extreme example to prove a point.

I just think the real issue is the tendency of consumers to ignore important specs like this when buying off the shelf, the corporate customers who will buy this as a standard model, and the lack of value at $1600 vs any comparable option. Also the fact that it is not a standard configuration means that if you do want 16GB it may not be as readily available.

It’s just an unnecessary limitation that was clearly done for profit. I bought an M1 Pro that comes standard with 16GB and, at the time, two 256GB modules because I knew that’s what I wanted. I just think that should be the base in something they are calling a MacBook Pro. Maybe that’s subjective and I’m just wrong, but a lot of people agree.

In the MacBook Air and even in the iMac I have less of an issue with it.

And now that I think about it it also exacerbates the issue of weird in between pricing. 16 gigs is $200 more bucks. Well for just $200 more than that I can get the Pro. And for just $200 more than that…

Works out well for Apple’s bottom line, I’m sure. But again something that didn’t have to be this way and arguably shouldn’t be.

 

[FishWhisperer]

Apple's new MacBook Pro models are powered by cutting-edge M3 Apple silicon, but the base configuration 14-inch model starting at $1,599 comes with just 8GB of working memory. In 2012, Apple launched the first MacBook Pro with Retina display, which also started with 8GB of RAM. Of course, Apple now uses integrated chips with unified memory architecture, which is why the company feels confident in arguing that 8GB on a Mac is comparable to 16GB on rival systems.

But not everyone is convinced. Apple's decision not to equip base models with at least 16GB of RAM in late 2023 has proved incongruous to many users, including Vadim Yuryev, co-host of the YouTube channel Max Tech. Yuryev decided to perform several real-world tests on two 14-inch M3 MacBook Pro models, one with 8GB and the other upgraded to 16GB of unified memory. The embedded video above has all the results.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Yuryev saw significant performance improvements across the board using the 16GB machine under both middling and heavier workloads. The 8GB model suffered double-digit losses in Cinebench benchmarks, and took several minutes longer to complete photo-merging jobs in Photoshop as well as media exports in Final Cut and Adobe Lightroom Classic.

These tests were conducted as single operations with nothing else running, but also repeated with browser tabs, YouTube videos, spreadsheets, emails, and the like, open in the background to simulate typical real-world multi-tasking scenarios. As expected, the performance gap between the two machines widened further as the 8GB increasingly relied on its SSD swap file, while all-round responsiveness took a hit. Yuryev even reported crashes on the 8GB model during Blender rendering and a Final Cut export.

Notably, Blender's raytracing acceleration was available as an option on the 16GB models, but was conspicuously absent on the 8GB MacBook Pro for an identical rendering job, suggesting the reduced memory pool actually prevents the GPU cores from utilizing certain features.

Tests like these present a dilemma for customers looking to purchase a new MacBook Pro (or a new 8GB iMac, for that matter). Settling for 8GB appears to hinder the M3 chip's performance, but choosing 16GB or 24GB configuration options at checkout costs an extra $200 and $400, respectively, and Apple's machines cannot be upgraded at a later date because of their unified memory architecture.

After factoring in the extra $200 for 16GB on a 14-inch M3 MacBook Pro, an M3 Pro model with 18GB and several other extra features is only $200 more at $1,999. More galling perhaps is the fact that rival laptops at similar ballpark prices (Microsoft Surface or Lenovo Thinkpad, for example) come with at least 16GB of memory as standard. Apple customers are expected to pay $200 extra each jump up, which surely includes a healthy markup, however much Apple pays its RAM suppliers.

Is Apple's 8GB starting configuration for a $1,599 MacBook Pro really acceptable in 2023? And has the company's memory pricing policy affected your own purchase options? Let us know in the comments.

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

This is a shocker! A computer with 16GB RAM performs better that the same computer with 8GB RAM. The real test would have been Apple 8GB vs comparable PC 16GB. But they need the clickbait...

 

[boak]

10 GB SIM plans are wrong because I can't stream 4k videos! The telco must be wrong for offering 10 GB SIM plans! All plans should start at 100 GB!

 

[KPOM]

Fortunately Best Buy didn’t have this configuration in stock when I went there.

18GB (misprint on site?) and 512GB SSD 14”

The M3 Pro starts at 18GB.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Disagree. There's an option to upgrade if needed. Why should customers pay for more memory they don't need?

This is a separate discussion from the pricing of memory.

It's marketed as a "pro" laptop but it utterly fails at basic pro tasks. If you read the text of the article, it mentions that the 8GB laptop simply crashed when running multiple benchmarks, so no comparison chart could be made between it and the 16GB laptop.

Although really, the Apple spokesperson was arguing that the 8GB MacBook Pro was similar to a 16GB laptop from a competitior, so they aught to be comparing it against a similar Dell laptop with 16 GB or something. But I suspect the Apple person is full of BS and the Dell laptop doesn't crash when running a render in Blender, unlike the 8GB MBP.

 

[Tyler O'Bannon]

Ok usually I am pretty picky towards videos like this because the average user of the base model is just not going to notice (like the M2 Air where the base SSD is 1 NAND chip instead of 2).

But this time.....

Dang. There is a MASSIVE difference between the exact same machine with 8GB vs. 16GB.

And at the price point, it really seems like 16GB base memory should be standard.

EDIT: We'll be lucky if that increases to 10GB or 12GB in the next 1-2 M series releases. And I wouldn't be surprised if the exact same scenario ends up happening with M4 and M5. Mainly because apple is defending it so openly, that the system can run efficiently with 8.

 

[Miha_v]

All base models lack performance compared to models that have higher specs.

Absolutely needed review, indeed.

Again, entirely depends on specific needs: for short video editing, base is great. For heavy multi-tasking and more demanding stuff, 16gb is apparently a must. Not something written on a product box. And after Apple's person was vocal about how "8GB on a Mac is like 16GBs on a PC" it's very welcome we have youtube reviewers, testing out this stuff and telling us how it actually is.

 

[sdf]

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Yuryev saw significant performance improvements across the board using the 16GB machine under both middling and heavier workloads. The 8GB model suffered double-digit losses in Cinebench benchmarks, and took several minutes longer to complete photo-merging jobs in Photoshop as well as media exports in Final Cut and Adobe Lightroom Classic.

The other day I tried to haul a refrigerated trailer up a hill with my Hyundai Ioniq. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it didn't work out very well.

Seriously, why the **** would you give this any air? Of course it didn't work! The point of the 8GB MAcBook isn't to run complete photo merging jobs in Photoshop! It's not to export media from Final Cut or Adobe Lightroom! It's to be between the MacBook Air and the larger price tag, higher capability MacBook Pros for those who need one!

The headline should've read "8GB RAM in M3 MacBook Pro Proves the Bottleneck in Some Real-World Tests Nobody Would Ever Think Would Work With Only 8GB of RAM But We're Posting It For Clicks Anyway And To Give Everyone A Chance To Be Offended."

Holy ****, I've lost so much respect for this site in one article.

…written, by the way, on an 8GB MacBook.

 

[boak]

Again, entirely depends on specific needs: for short video editing, base is great. For heavy multi-tasking and more demanding stuff, 16gb is apparently a must. Not something written on a product box. And after Apple's person was vocal about how "8GB on a Mac is like 16GBs on a PC" it's very welcome we have youtube reviewers, testing out this stuff and telling us how it actually is.

But they didn't test 16 GB on PC??

This video does not add any value in disproving the claim.

 

[boak]

It's marketed as a "pro" laptop but it utterly fails at basic pro tasks. If you read the text of the article, it mentions that the 8GB laptop simply crashed when running multiple benchmarks, so no comparison chart could be made between it and the 16GB laptop.

Benchmarks are not basic pro tasks 💀

 

[neuropsychguy]

Nobody would complain about the 8GB base model if the RAM upgrades weren't multiple times more expensive than they should be.

Yes they would. Less expensive upgrades would cut down on some complaints but when have some people ever not complained about anything?

 

[assquatch]

People are really conflating side-by-side 8gb m3 vs 16gb m3 performance with the quote about 8gb m3 vs 16gb pc. I'd like to see that comparison to back up the quote. I think it is possible. The unified architecture is for a reason. RAM is a cache, not a storage, and while people seem fixated on absolute RAM size, performance is actually a function of both size and speed of RAM, Storage, CPU caches, and bus speeds.

 

[rhegyi]

Apple's new MacBook Pro models are powered by cutting-edge M3 Apple silicon, but the base configuration 14-inch model starting at $1,599 comes with just 8GB of working memory. In 2012, Apple launched the first MacBook Pro with Retina display, which also started with 8GB of RAM. Of course, Apple now uses integrated chips with unified memory architecture, which is why the company feels confident in arguing that 8GB on a Mac is comparable to 16GB on rival systems.

But not everyone is convinced. Apple's decision not to equip base models with at least 16GB of RAM in late 2023 has proved incongruous to many users, including Vadim Yuryev, co-host of the YouTube channel Max Tech. Yuryev decided to perform several real-world tests on two 14-inch M3 MacBook Pro models, one with 8GB and the other upgraded to 16GB of unified memory. The embedded video above has all the results.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Yuryev saw significant performance improvements across the board using the 16GB machine under both middling and heavier workloads. The 8GB model suffered double-digit losses in Cinebench benchmarks, and took several minutes longer to complete photo-merging jobs in Photoshop as well as media exports in Final Cut and Adobe Lightroom Classic.

These tests were conducted as single operations with nothing else running, but also repeated with browser tabs, YouTube videos, spreadsheets, emails, and the like, open in the background to simulate typical real-world multi-tasking scenarios. As expected, the performance gap between the two machines widened further as the 8GB increasingly relied on its SSD swap file, while all-round responsiveness took a hit. Yuryev even reported crashes on the 8GB model during Blender rendering and a Final Cut export.

Notably, Blender's raytracing acceleration was available as an option on the 16GB models, but was conspicuously absent on the 8GB MacBook Pro for an identical rendering job, suggesting the reduced memory pool actually prevents the GPU cores from utilizing certain features.

Tests like these present a dilemma for customers looking to purchase a new MacBook Pro (or a new 8GB iMac, for that matter). Settling for 8GB appears to hinder the M3 chip's performance, but choosing 16GB or 24GB configuration options at checkout costs an extra $200 and $400, respectively, and Apple's machines cannot be upgraded at a later date because of their unified memory architecture.

After factoring in the extra $200 for 16GB on a 14-inch M3 MacBook Pro, an M3 Pro model with 18GB and several other extra features is only $200 more at $1,999. More galling perhaps is the fact that rival laptops at similar ballpark prices (Microsoft Surface or Lenovo Thinkpad, for example) come with at least 16GB of memory as standard. Apple customers are expected to pay $200 extra each jump up, which surely includes a healthy markup, however much Apple pays its RAM suppliers.

Is Apple's 8GB starting configuration for a $1,599 MacBook Pro really acceptable in 2023? And has the company's memory pricing policy affected your own purchase options? Let us know in the comments.

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

Wait a minute...shouldn't this guy have had a 16GB Intel PC to compare to? Well DUH...DId you actually expect the 8GB machine to be as fast as 16GBMac??? Plus this guy hawks CLEAN MY MAC...Weren't they forced to refund $$$ for falsely reporting viruses ...I kinda remember something like that....