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

[0423MAC]

Almost like all of us who've been arguing about how dumb it was that Apple was selling Pros with 8GB for the last two years in here were proven right.

You are never going to get through to some despite the overwhelming evidence proving otherwise. This debate was settled when Apple retroactively "upgraded" the base M2 MacBook Air to ship with 16GB RAM default at the same price overnight on October 30th, 2024.

Unrelated, but another case is the iPhone 15 doozy. Pushing Apple Intelligence hard, but not compatible with recently released phones with a price range between $800-$1,200. Perhaps that extra 2GB RAM might have squeezed a little too much into their profits or wreck their planned obsolescence strategy.

 

[chucker23n1]

We shouldn’t be living in a world in where a 5 year old computer with 16GB RAM is in a position in where it is better equipped to handle more demanding tasks than expensive computers released later.

Agreed, but the entry-level Air is not an "expensive computer", and it wasn't five years. You're overstating your case.

In the past you could mitigate this issue with upgrades

This is true, but it's not what most consumers actually want.

 

[chucker23n1]

Unrelated, but another case is the iPhone 15 doozy. Pushing Apple Intelligence hard, but not compatible with recently released phones with a price range between $800-$1,200. Perhaps that extra 2GB RAM might have squeezed a little too much into their profits or wreck their planned obsolescence strategy.

Eh, I'm fine with that. Maybe because Apple Intelligence (how are we supposed to abbreviate this stupid term?) isn't that big a deal anyway. Newer hardware comes with newer features.

Where it gets problematic is when the hardware already has specs that severely limit it. I don't personally feel that was the case with the iPhone. An iPhone with 6 GiB RAM isn't enough to run Apple Intelligence, but it's plenty for virtually everything else. A Mac with 8 GiB RAM, OTOH, is not plenty.

 

[Kal Madda]

You are never going to get through to some despite the overwhelming evidence proving otherwise. This debate was settled when Apple retroactively "upgraded" the base M2 MacBook Air to ship with 16GB RAM default at the same price overnight on October 30th, 2024.

Unrelated, but another case is the iPhone 15 doozy. Pushing Apple Intelligence hard, but not compatible with recently released phones with a price range between $800-$1,200. Perhaps that extra 2GB RAM might have squeezed a little too much into their profits or wreck their planned obsolescence strategy.

Nothing is “settled”. And there isn’t “overwhelming evidence” for your position, you are merely interpreting things through your lens, and then concluding your presuppositions are correct. To be clear, we all see things through our lenses, but this doesn’t make anything “settled” in this debate. Plenty of us disagree with your conclusions.

Apple simply choosing to sell a higher base-spec model doesn’t mean that the prior base-spec model was a “bad value”, was “useless”, or that they were being “stingy”… It simply means they decided to up the base spec model. Quite possibly because they plan on bringing a budget MacBook to replace it with an A-series chip. Just because Apple added a Tandem-OLED display panel in the M4 iPad Pro doesn’t mean the prior iPad Pro was garbage. Just because Apple updates the M-Series chip in their computers every release doesn’t mean the prior M-Series chip was a “bad value”. That’s a logical fallacy. You interpret a change in specs as an “acknowledgment” that you were right and that the prior models were “poor value”, but that does not logically follow. That’s merely the way you choose to interpret it through your lens…

Sometimes new major features require new hardware. People like to claim the RAM is the limiting factor, but there are other factors at play as well, such as CPU, Neural Engine, etc. all of which on the older models would likely make major negative impacts on performance, but particularly the older Neural Engines would probably make a decent impact on how it could run.

And the “planned obsolescence” arguments are old. Apple supports their hardware with many years of updates. Things get old. That’s the way things work, especially in tech. And at some point, old hardware won’t run new features. That’s just the way things work…

 

[jlc1978]

And the “planned obsolescence” arguments are old. Apple supports their hardware with many years of updates. Things get old. That’s the way things work, especially in tech. And at some point, old hardware won’t run new features. That’s just the way things work…

And yet they still do what they did when purchased. As you point out, tech has a lifespan, but that doesn't mean it magically stops working.

You are never going to get through to some despite the overwhelming evidence proving otherwise. This debate was settled when Apple retroactively "upgraded" the base M2 MacBook Air to ship with 16GB RAM default at the same price overnight on October 30th, 2024.

So if Apple suddenly uped it to 24 or 32, all those people who argued 16 was the minimum would be proven wrong?

Edit: Typo fix

 

[Kal Madda]

And yet they still do what they did when purchased. As you point out, tech has a lifespan, but that doesn't mean it magically stops working.



So if Apple suddenly used it to 24 or 32, all those people who argued 16 was the minimum would be proven wrong?

Exactly. 8GB Macs still do everything they did when customers bought them. Plus additional things with software updates Apple has provided. 👍🏻

Yeah, the problem is that they are viewing things through their interpretive lens. When Apple changes a spec, it isn’t an “acknowledgment” that the prior gen was “useless”, or a “bad value”. It just means they changed the spec. When Apple releases an M5 chip, it won’t be an “acknowledgment” that the M4 is junk. And if people are currently arguing that the M4 chip is a “bad value” or “useless”, Apple releasing an M5 chip won’t “prove them right”…

 

[chucker23n1]

So if Apple suddenly uped it to 24 or 32, all those people who argued 16 was the minimum would be proven wrong?

Eventually (5 years? 10 years?), they should obviously do exactly that. Right now, I think 16 is a perfectly fine base for the vast majority of users. I would've been fine with 12, too. 8, not so much.

The current weakness in the specs isn't the RAM any more; it's the storage. Some will argue that's OK, because 1) you can always connect external storage (though that's awkward and dataloss-prone on a laptop), and 2) lots of people have the bulk of their storage in the cloud anyway. Neither holds true for the RAM.

 

[Kal Madda]

Eventually (5 years? 10 years?), they should obviously do exactly that. Right now, I think 16 is a perfectly fine base for the vast majority of users. I would've been fine with 12, too. 8, not so much.

The current weakness in the specs isn't the RAM any more; it's the storage. Some will argue that's OK, because 1) you can always connect external storage (though that's awkward and dataloss-prone on a laptop), and 2) lots of people have the bulk of their storage in the cloud anyway. Neither holds true for the RAM.

Here though, people are trying to argue that Apple changing a spec is somehow “proof” that the prior spec was “useless”, a “bad value”, or that Apple was being “greedy”… And this doesn’t follow. Because Apple updates specs in their computers all the time, and merely updating specs isn’t some kind of “evidence” that the prior specs were “useless” or a “bad value”. The 8GB Apple Silicon Macs are a great option for those who don’t need excess RAM, and want to save money. And they’re quite capable, as I have proven in this thread with multiple screenshots of heavy apps most users wouldn’t use in the first place, or even expect to use on a base-spec computer, all running great on an 8GB M1 Mac…

 

[chucker23n1]

Here though, people are trying to argue that Apple changing a spec is somehow “proof” that the prior spec was “useless”, a “bad value”, or that Apple was being “greedy”… And this doesn’t follow.

Indeed it does not.

I would say it was a bad value, but Apple doesn't price for good value.

As for useless, I wouldn't quite go that far.

I will say that their move to upgrade the M3 and M2(!) base configs was unusual. Does it follow that the previous offerings were "useless"? No. A little underspecced? IMHO, yes.

Because Apple updates specs in their computers all the time, and merely updating specs isn’t some kind of “evidence” that the prior specs were “useless” or a “bad value”.

Yep.

The 8GB Apple Silicon Macs are a great option for those who don’t need excess RAM, and want to save money. And they’re quite capable, as I have proven in this thread with multiple screenshots of heavy apps

Yeah, well, that's where you lose me.

 

[Kal Madda]

Indeed it does not.

I would say it was a bad value, but Apple doesn't price for good value.

As for useless, I wouldn't quite go that far.

I will say that their move to upgrade the M3 and M2(!) base configs was unusual. Does it follow that the previous offerings were "useless"? No. A little underspecced? IMHO, yes.



Yep.



Yeah, well, that's where you lose me.

I respect your opinion, though I disagree. 👍🏻. But I don’t understand “that’s where you lose me.” How is me saying that I believe it’s a good value for many people who don’t need excess RAM losing you? And I shared tons of screenshots and evidence that prove that heavy software’s most people don’t use, let alone on a base spec, can all run fine on the 8GB M1 Mac…