And that is why Apple decided to donate 8GB extra. They have all that data and know best (according to yourself). They see all these people running heavy apps with 8GB, “not a problem”. And they will be fine with 8GB for many years to come. And still, make 16GB the base…I guess Apple is running a charity.
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
That doesn’t follow. People still use an M1 chip fine even though Apple has rolled out an M4. Just because Apple changes specs doesn’t mean prior specs were “worthless” or a “bad value”… It simply means that Apple decided to change a spec…
For many people who aren’t doing heavy workflows, heavy into AAA gaming on a Mac (which even still hardly exists), etc., 8GB will likely continue to run the apps they’re using…. And even people with heavier workflows will likely be fine with 8GB models, I can run all of my professional graphic design software on an 8GB M1 Mac, plus other heavier niche apps like Blender, and it runs fine…
Apple changing to a 16GB spec doesn’t mean that everyone suddenly needs 16GB of RAM. That’s not how that works. Just like Apple releasing an M4 doesn’t suddenly make everyone need an M4 in place of an M2 or M1…
To save you the trouble:
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.
It's abhorrent that apple shipped such expensive computers with insufficient resources and no viable recourse to correct or address if needs change after the purchase is made. I’ve already commented on how this could be an added benefit to AppleCare+ consumers if they are willing to pay the extra fee for the service. Apple gets to keep their sweet, guaranteed profit margin on the parts and the consumers have the option to keep using otherwise perfectly usable machines a bit longer.
"they should have known better" on the consumer end is not a valid response.
neither is the idea that consumers should just get a brand new machine if such a small upgrade will help. This was the case for most of the entire history of personal computing and still is for most. Apple getting a pass for as long as they have has been the result of government officials not adequately doing their job protecting consumers. Eg: If it wasn’t for the EU we would still be using lightning cables. I would hope they would aggressively go after storage next.
The idea that consumers don’t care nor want such flexibility is not a viable response either for a variety of reasons. Especially when the same company continues to shove environmental goals every chance they get.
I understand this would appear odd to some browsing this forum (most notably you and just a few others in this thread), but it really is bad for consumers that has allowed Microsoft, Samsung and others to do more of the same and it should end.
On a much more serious scale this is becoming an ever bigger trend on automobiles which is unfortunate.
In this context RAM and CPU are not comparable. If you run, say, Cinema 4D on a processor that's half as fast it'll run at half the speed. If you run it with half of the RAM required then performance will drop off a cliff.
Exactly! The same people also claim that Pro in the MBP does not make it a “Pro” machine and that people do not look at specs. So what is it? People should know better, but should also not look at the specs because it does not matter and Pro does not say anything? And also completely agree with the rant on non upgradeability. I have done this to my own Intel MacBook (replace HDD with SSD, added ram) to give it another 2.5 years or so, and did the same to family members’s macbooks. Took 15 minutes tops. Transferring data was it the thing that costed time.
I mean, isn't this the exact response used to justify sideloading on iOS?
When I point out that it is possible to be led into installing malware on android devices, the common response is that users need to be responsible for their own security. They have a choice as to whether to sideload or not, and if anything uptowards happens to them, it's just too bad that they did not perform their due diligence.
Yet when it comes to picking the right specs on the Mac, users are somehow incapable of determining for themselves just how much ram they should need in a device. If I know that I would be better served with 16gb or even 32gb of ram, it's Apple's fault for offering an entry level model with 8gb ram (which I am totally under zero obligation to choose), and not mine for not going with a pro model, or paying to add more ram to my laptop.
My understanding is that the ram needs to be soldered to the motherboard in order to benefit from the performance gains of Apple Silicon. If you want a device that can be upgraded indefinitely, there are plenty of Windows laptops that fit the bill, but then you make a conscious decision to give up the performance and battery life benefits. You may also end up with a thicker device.
So the tradeoff isn't between having an upgradable laptop and one that isn't. But having to choose between upgradeability (a long term benefit, assuming you even plan to keep your laptop for that long), vs better performance and battery life right now (a benefit that would impact you for as long as you plan to keep your current laptop).
In short, life is all about tradeoffs, as it always has been.
Not really. You might want to read up on CAMM modules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAMM_(memory_module)
A. I don’t know what source you’re citing for that, and B. Even if 8GB base-spec models don’t support ray-tracing in Blender, who cares. Nobody expects to run Blender on a base-spec machine in the first place. And all the sculpting/modeling tools are there, which are what many are after when they use the app, ray tracing isn’t the main feature of the software… If you’re a professional 3D designer or animator, get a higher spec, you wouldn’t be buying a base spec regardless, even a 16GB wouldn’t be ideal for animation. The point is, many heavy apps can run simultaneously on an 8GB M1 Mac, including Blender, which most wouldn’t even expect to run on a base-spec model in the first place, and these apps run simultaneously without performance issues, something people tried to claim was “impossible” and something I proved with tests and screenshots…
It’s only your opinion that 8GB is “insufficient”. Many people think otherwise. And the 8GB models sold well, indicating many consumers found it to be sufficient as well. I personally know several individuals who bought an 8GB Apple Silicon Mac, even moving from Windows, and they are very happy with their purchases. 8GB models are more than enough for many people and a great value…
It absolutely is a valid response. If I buy a truck without a towing package, and then go to haul a big trailer all around the country without the proper specs for it, that’s on me, not the dealership… Same with this. It’s very simple, if you need more, then buy more. If you’re use-case is lighter as many people’s are, buy a base-spec. It really isn’t complicated…
And practically nobody cracks open their computer to replace fragile RAM. Many computers are moving to RAM on the SOC because of the benefits in efficiency, speed, etc. RAM cards are antique. More customers care about battery runtime and performance than replacing a component they probably haven’t even heard of, or wouldn’t bother to try to replace anyways even if they did know what it was. The percentage of people who actually take the time and risk to crack open their computer to swap out fragile boards and components is few and far between.
The government has no business in dictating what specs/features a company must sell in their products. That is far outside the proper scope of government authority. Lightning is perfectly fine, and they may have decided to move to USB-C since their other product lines were moving in that direction. But with such overstepping regulation, now nobody can really innovate a new port design. Because if they want to sell in the EU, they are forced by the arbitrary whims of an overreaching government to use one port, which eventually will probably be antiquated like the microUSB port the EU originally wanted to force on everyone…. Such government regulation is outside the proper scope of government authority, and harms innovation and free market competition… But that’s another debate altogether…
And so basically this proves what my side of the debate has said from the beginning, some just want nice specs without paying for them. Rather than pay for the desired storage spec, have the government force a private business to give one of their nicer specs for free…. A. That is again, outside the proper scope of government authority. And B. It proves that this really is a slippery slope, and some would even go as far as advocating for government to force a private business to give them the spec they want for free rather than just buying what they need… At that rate, why shouldn’t government force Apple to put 128GB of RAM and 8TB of storage in the base spec? It’s a slippery slope, it’s outside of the proper scope of government authority, and people can just buy the spec that they want, it’s very simple…
And most customers don’t care about such “flexibility”… They buy the computer they want with the specs they want, and they use it for several years, and then they upgrade to a new one. It’s very simple. Practically nobody is cracking open their expensive computer to swap fragile internal components…
It isn’t bad for consumers, because the majority of consumers don’t care about swapping out fragile internal components in their computers. They buy what they want, use it, and then eventually upgrade to something newer down the road. And consumers get to benefit in areas they do actually care more about, like battery runtime, performance, efficiency, etc…