Nah. Single-core perf has a huge effect on web surfing in this age of JS-heavy web sites. It'll absolutely feel much, much smoother on an M1 than a 2010's Intel CPU.
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
Nah. Single-core perf has a huge effect on web surfing in this age of JS-heavy web sites. It'll absolutely feel much, much smoother on an M1 than a 2010's Intel CPU.
If you're poor and you don't have the disposable income, you don't buy apple anyway.
You don't know what facts are. Stop being emotional.
It's not "way faster" it's comparable. You can neither run a couple of VMs on your 2010 Desktop PC nor on you 2024 M1 8GB laptop simultaneously, nor can it run 4k games with all bells and whistles.
If Apple would offer you a 4GB MBA you would buy it over any IBM PC notebook just because it has an apple logo
But that's just bad web design. And yes, most website nowadays are absolutely horrendous.
I don't buy hardware to compensate inability of people to program.
Besides, modern browsers do multi-threading now. Single Thread performance is not as important as it was in 2008ish when everything ran in one thread, from the video decoder over the JS engine to the flash plugin within the browser.
Who is talking about poor people?
Wrong.
I do neither.
You make up imaginary scenarios, yet accuse me of being the one basing things on feelings? Cute.If Apple would offer you a 4GB MBA you would buy it over any IBM PC notebook just because it has an apple logo
As someone who still happens to own a 16GB 2012 MacBook Pro, I can tell you, it doesn’t compare to my 8GB M1 Mac by a long-shot… For one, it no longer gets updates, I think we’re even passed security updates at this point. Also, it runs like a hotplate. And softwares I can run perfectly fine on my 8GB M1 Mac aren’t even available anymore on the 2012 Mac, because many app developers no longer support hardware that old. And my 8GB M1 Mac Mini beats the snot out of that 16GB 2012 MacBook Pro when it comes to performance. So no, they aren’t even close to the same…
Why would I save $200 on a computer I am going to use for years? Because there’s no point in paying $200 extra for excess RAM I don’t need when that money could go to several other things. Because I want to maximize my dollar. Because I don’t feel like wasting money when I know that my needs aren’t likely to dramatically change in the next few years, and that money could be better spent elsewhere. There are many reasons to save $200 if you can…
Apple doesn’t use SODIMM RAM cards… And RAM upgrade cost isn’t based on the production cost of the RAM chips, it’s based on the value of the end product/experience. Just like when a restaurant charges more than they pay for soft drinks to go with your meal…
Last edited:
Who here is poor?If you're poor and you don't have the disposable income, you don't buy apple anyway.
You don't know what facts are. Stop being emotional.
It's not "way faster" it's comparable. You can neither run a couple of VMs on your 2010 Desktop PC nor on you 2024 M1 8GB laptop simultaneously, nor can it run 4k games with all bells and whistles.
If Apple would offer you a 4GB MBA you would buy it over any IBM PC notebook just because it has an apple logo
Uh, Macs are, in fact, in competition with Windows computers… Nothing emotional in saying that…
And many people don’t do either of those things on their Mac in the first place… So those aren’t the standard. It would be like saying “you can neither animate the next Pixar movie on your 2010 8GB base spec, nor on a 2024 32GB spec, so they’re comparable”… Just because two computers don’t support some high-end use-case doesn’t mean they’re comparable… The 8GB M1 is way faster though at running my graphic design software than an old 2012 Mac with 16GB of RAM which also barely supports it in the first place (I don’t know if it even supports the latest versions of my graphic design software anymore)…
And that isn’t an emotional argument? That’s silly. Just because someone has bought and uses an Apple product that you don’t like doesn’t mean they would buy anything made by Apple. That is a logical fallacy…
Yeah, just went back and checked on everything today after leaving all of that stuff up all yesterday. Everything was still running smoothly. And none of the web browser tabs I had up were even binned, nothing had to reload. I quickly switched through a bunch of tabs in Chrome and Safari and they opened up right away. And memory pressure was still green. Not a single hangup, slowdown, or beachball cursor, even switching quickly between all of those apps and browser tabs…
Apple Inc, the company headquartered in Cupertino California explicitly told their customers that going forward 16GB will be the standard. In fact they went back and refreshed products originally introduced in 2022 with 8GB RAM and bumped the entry models to 16GB as well at no additional cost. This confirms that a case can be made that since 2022 their CPU (M2) and 8GB RAM as equipped with back then were out of whack with what most customers would need during the regular cycle of updates that those machines are expected to receive (5-8+ years).
Apple isn't in the business of admitting they were wrong via press releases, but their actions prove they held on too long. Apple also got caught with AI and under-specced the iPhone 15 in where going forward the customers with the iPhone 15 will not be experiencing a huge feature Apple had been working on for years along with other features they will inevitably likely have to cut sooner due to lack of system resources.
How this is even a "debate" at this point is laughable.
Apple isn't in the business of admitting they were wrong via press releases, but their actions prove they held on too long. Apple also got caught with AI and under-specced the iPhone 15 in where going forward the customers with the iPhone 15 will not be experiencing a huge feature Apple had been working on for years along with other features they will inevitably likely have to cut sooner due to lack of system resources.
How this is even a "debate" at this point is laughable.
Last edited:
They didn’t “refresh” anything. They changed the price points. 8GB remains available from certain outlets.
We just spent several pages explaining why this was not an “admission” of anything, not going to do it again.
Sure was an admission considering the margin lost on their lowest priced machines. To look at it any other way is flat out delusional. Apple isn't in the charity business.
Apple deciding to up the base-spec RAM is not an “admission” of anything. Otherwise, any time Apple improved any spec could be deemed an “admission from Apple” that the prior spec was “worthless”, “insufficient”, whatever… Apple likely chose to up the base spec RAM to coax some people to upgrade to newer Macs. Notice they completely dropped the M1 Macs from their product offerings aside from the refurbished store. They probably want to coax some people to upgrade from the M1 to keep sales up higher, and are having a hard time because the M1 Macs are so good. This doesn’t prove anything about whether or not 8GB base spec models from prior years were a good value or not. They clearly were, and I would argue still are since they can now be bought at discounted rates, and can more than handle an average workflow. I just proved that the 8GB M1 Mac can run 14 Chrome tabs, 3 Safari tabs with a home-page video playing on repeat on one of those tabs, an Excel sheet, two Word documents, Outlook, and a couple other apps like Finder and Activity Monitor, all running smoothly with green memory pressure. I even came back to it after leaving all that stuff open for an entire day, and everything was still loaded, nothing was binned, even the oldest open Chrome tabs. Nothing had to load, and memory pressure was still the same. I even quickly switched between apps and browser tabs, and everything opened instantly, nothing had to load, and everything was smooth. Not a single beachball cursor… That is more than enough for the average user, and I would happily recommend it as a great budget option.
Yeah, computers always stay at the same price with the same spec forever, they never lower in price over time 🙄
Apple can’t only know best when it’s convenient for your argument.
apple.com - it’s all right there out in the open. New Macs all starting with 16GB RAM and it’s beautiful.
A. I never said Apple always knows best, though I definitely believe they know better how to manage their products than random people on an internet forum…
B. Your interpretations are the issue here. Yes, we know that Apple switched to 16GB as the base spec. To my knowledge, no one here is saying that didn’t happen or even that that’s a bad thing. But Apple ups the base specs on their devices from time to time, that isn’t any kind of “admission” of anything. Is upgrading to the M4 and “admission” that the M3 was worthless? Of course not. When Apple ups the base storage on iPhones, is it an “admission” that the previous base storage was somehow not enough, even though tons of users continue using iPhones with less storage and have no issues? Of course not. Base specs change occasionally. It doesn’t mean that the prior base spec was “useless” or “inadequate”. I just proved that the 8GB M1 Mac can power yet another heavier use-case that most average users likely wouldn’t come close to touching, and it was running smooth as butter, with green memory pressure and no beachballs or slowdowns in sight…
The base level Macs and iPhones are the 'best sellers' because they are the most affordable options from a company that has a higher floor than most of the rest of the industry. What you just asked is a tired old argument that Apple even tried to give influencers like MKBHD in the past when they stuck around with 16GB as a storage option on the iPhone back in the day. Apple is not infallible and they have a history of holding on to specs a bit too long before having to make a sweeping change across their product lines. This has been consistent with the company since the PowerPC days, throughout the intel generation of Macs and now more of the same with Apple Silicon Macs.
CPU updates? Apples and Oranges. CPU upgrades tend to have new instructions and/or increased graphical performance to better support latest applications such as Resident Evil along with efficiency upgrades etc. It is in no way comparable to a much needed RAM capacity update.
I never used the word useless, but apple did agree with us on this side that 8GB RAM was likely going to be inadequate for most people going forward. Being this upset about a much requested upgrade and calling those who have been suggesting Apple to do this as "elitists" is strange.
Enjoy your 8GB RAM Mac it will work great for years to come, but it was time for most of us (including Apple) to move forward.
A. Just your opinions stated as if they’re facts… You think that Apple “has a history of holding on to specs a bit too long”. This isn’t a fact, it’s merely your opinion… You’re entitled to your opinion, but I disagree.
B. The 8GB base specs were the bestsellers and customer satisfaction was at record highs… If the majority of people who bought 8GB Apple Silicon Macs found them to be unsuitable for their needs or a poor experience, we wouldn’t expect to see such high customer satisfaction…
C. I think you fail to see the point with the CPU upgrade analogy. By your own admission there, they actually add more substantial and important improvements on a yearly basis than an occasional RAM base spec bump does. Is the M3 useless because it lacks the “new instructions and/or increased graphical performance to support latest applications…along with efficiency upgrades, etc…” that the M4 has? If modern apps run better on the M4, should everyone ditch the M3 and/or not consider buying the M3 at a discount even if the M3 will be sufficient for many people’s needs? Of course not. Yes, CPU upgrades aren’t the same as the occasional RAM spec bump, and I understand that, But this is the same underlying logic at work. It’s just a more extreme example of the logical implications of your logic if you argue that anytime Apple changes a spec it means they’re “admitting” the prior one was “bad”, “inadequate”, or whatever… You seem to suggest that even though 8GB models are more than enough for many people’s needs, no one should buy them and they’re somehow a terrible value… Reality is that 8GB is more than sufficient for many people’s needs to this day, and is a solid option for people on a budget who can get these models at a great discount…
D. Apple didn’t agree with you at all. Again, it boils down to your preconceptions and your interpretations of Apple’s actions. Where on Apple’s website does it say “we shouldn’t have sold 8GB Apple Silicon Macs, and no one should buy them because they’re inadequate for everyone’s needs”? Show me that page of their website, and then we can talk about Apple “agreeing” with you…
E. I am not upset that Apple changed the base RAM spec. I have nothing against Apple choosing to make that change. What I take issue with is people indicating Apple was somehow being “miserly” and just “hated” or “didn’t care about” their customers because they made an 8GB configuration. What I take issue with is people pretending the 8GB models are somehow “unusable” or “inadequate”, when I’ve proven it can do things most average users would never dream of doing. These are the things I disagree with and take issue with, because they are false. I’m not saying you argued all of those things, but people in this thread have. And I didn’t say people were “elitist” for suggesting Apple should change the base spec, I said people came across as elitist when they said an 8GB model shouldn’t exist at all, implied that people on a budget should just be happy shelling out more money for a 16GB model even when an 8GB model they could buy cheaper at a discount would be more than adequate for their needs, and when someone said people with lighter needs didn’t need a MacBook and just need an iPad (as much as I love iPads, some might just like the form factor and built in keyboard of a MacBook better). These are the kinds of sentiments I have said come across as elitist and snobbish, especially the idea that people should pay extra to buy a 16GB model when a used/refurbished 8GB model would be adequate for their needs and would save them some money. It has nothing to do with people simply thinking the base spec should be higher. That position I can respect more. The position trying to argue 8GB Macs aren’t able to support basic or average use-cases, that no-one should consider buying one, that Apple is awful terrible big mean company that hates it’s customers because they made an 8GB configuration, and that somehow everyone’s 8GB Macs will be dropped from support or go up in smoke or something prematurely, I do not respect because it is completely false and emotion/opinion based…
E. Thank you, I hope you enjoy your Mac as well. At least we can agree that it will work great for years to come. Some seem to think it will somehow poof away in smoke or something if I open a dozen browser tabs. 🙂👍🏻
Last edited:
Apple did not decide when you should go from 8 to 16 GB. You have been able to buy a 16GB MacBook Pro since 2010. If shifting the base RAM up is inherently an admission now, do you think it would not have been an admission to do that five years ago? Ten years ago? At which point do you believe raising up base RAM would not have been this “admission” that you believe it is?
Also, Apple DID move forward, last year. Maybe it is time for you to do the same.
By the way, sorry for double replying to the same post, but forgot something: You can’t both say that Apple could easily double the RAM without much added cost because RAM is cheap, and at the same time argue that the margin lost is so significant that it becomes an “admission” of anything.
They did lose margin, but in a different way: The lost margin is not on the lowest priced machines, but in the missing upsells because the entry got better. The high margin is not on the model that is stingy on RAM, but on the one you are buying if you need more. And as I have said before, what Apple should really be criticised for in terms of pricing, is that the 32GB variants mostly stayed the same. A lot of the power users complaining that 8GB is way too little got exactly nothing out of this upgrade. And they don’t even notice it, because they are so preoccupied with what other people are buying.
One needs to care more about memory swap a lot more in these systems, though. You're wearing out your SSD faster and when that SSD dies so does the entire Mac.
And that isn’t likely to happen before the end of its 6-8 years of software support. The claims of “it will wear out your SSD” are way over-exaggerated, it would take a very long time for swap memory to have any such kind of impact. And besides, my Mac doesn’t even need to use much swap memory, I just shared screenshots of my 8GB Mac running Chrome with 14 tabs, Safari with 3 including a video on a page running on loop, Outlook, 2 Word documents, an Excel sheet, plus several other apps, and memory pressure was green, and there wasn’t much swap memory even in use at that point. My Mac runs my graphic design softwares with dozens of files open, plus several other apps without breaking a sweat. People for some reason act as if swap memory is the boogie man or something. It isn’t. Swap memory is completely normal, and the claims of it “prematurely killing computers” have been greatly exaggerated…
SSDs failing due to swap memory use is incredibly rare. Computers have been using swap memory for decades… And Intel 8GB Macs would have used more swap memory due to their not nearly as efficient RAM management, and we didn’t see them dying due to swap memory on any wide scale either…