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
Granny doesn’t need a $2000 pro level device does she?
Granny needs a Chromebook or iPad. Maybe even pushing it to the limit a MacBook Air. Apples marketing is genius. Fooling everyone into thinking the MacBook Pro is for them.
You are 100% correct, granny doesn’t need anymore then 8GB of ram.
But then Apple doesn’t need to call any device “PRO” with 8GB of ram. Because pro level devices are not geared towards granny.
Not really. Because all higher-specced models will need to drop their prices by $100 too. That's a lot of revenue lost.
Agreed. Then those people need iPads or airs. Not MacBook pros.
No. All models will need to have their prices cut by $100.
And Apple loses part of the 8 GB model market.
In conclusion, Apple will lose mone.
They need whatever computer works best for them and does what they want and need it to do. If that’s a MacBook Pro, who are you to say “you don’t need that”.
Apple was able to double the ram in the iPhone from 11 Pro to 15 Pro and include OLED displays and add a usb-c port without price increases but when it comes to a MacBook we’re expected to bend over and pay $200 more. Maybe Apple should charge $200 more for the phones since people will pay it.
My default RAM for personal use was 16 ten-plus years ago. I certainly wouldn't buy 8 now. 32 is my new default and what my current Intel machine from 2019 has.
I think at least the "Pro" models should have 16 to start. I could buy the other base machines for the most casual of users (social media, email, audio/video consumption) could get by and be fine with 8, but it's still such a cringey, profit-margin penny-pinching move it just looks... bad.
At least back in the day when I moved to 16 I was able to upgrade myself. What a time to be alive in Apple land way back.
I think at least the "Pro" models should have 16 to start. I could buy the other base machines for the most casual of users (social media, email, audio/video consumption) could get by and be fine with 8, but it's still such a cringey, profit-margin penny-pinching move it just looks... bad.
At least back in the day when I moved to 16 I was able to upgrade myself. What a time to be alive in Apple land way back.
Where I work we have thousands of Mac users. Procurement only allows M2 model purchases now, but the M3 will be up soon. I'm a dev and I got an MBP with M1 Pro with 32 GB of RAM and 1TB SDD from last year. Current purchase would be the same with an M2 Pro. When the M3 is allowed my job classification will get the M3 Pro. Same RAM and SSD.
These smoke the previous Intel models, which came with 64GB.
Accountants, managers, etc. get an Mx (not Pro) with 8GB and a 1TB SSD. Most creatives in Marketing get Mx Pro or Mx Max, 64 GB RAM and 4 TB SSD.
They also smoke the previous models, which came with more memory.
Edit: I think they do get Mx with 16GB for execs so they can have lots of Youtube tabs open.
These smoke the previous Intel models, which came with 64GB.
Accountants, managers, etc. get an Mx (not Pro) with 8GB and a 1TB SSD. Most creatives in Marketing get Mx Pro or Mx Max, 64 GB RAM and 4 TB SSD.
They also smoke the previous models, which came with more memory.
Edit: I think they do get Mx with 16GB for execs so they can have lots of Youtube tabs open.
Exactly, this is so frustrating every time Apple releases new products, new software, new chips, anything, some of these shock-jock YouTubers make wild claims and comparisons that don’t even make sense or reflect the majority of actual users.
Both are crappy user experiences. An 8GB machine for $1,600 that chokes with 20 browser tabs is crappy user experience. Did you watch the video?
But yes, please keep going with the mental gymnastics and bootlicking.
And they wonder why Mac sales are slipping, yet continue to do the same nonsense.
No, the problem is the combination of the base RAM/SSD spec compared to other > $1000 laptops combined with the much higher price of upgrades. Whatever the base price, whatever PC spec you think that's equivalent to, Apple still want $200 per 8GB RAM increment plus $200 each extra 512GB SSD bump which is totally off the scale compared to the actual cost of those parts.
The base MBP RAM/SSD spec hasn't changed much since 2013 (when it wasn't so unreasonable, especially given the high cost of larger SSDs then) but it becomes more and more ridiculous with each passing Mac update - esp. with the memory demands of websites and document editing increasing as image resolutions and the use of
...and the current round of these threads only started because Apple found it necessary to come up with a... let's say controversial defence for this deficiency rather than just fix the problem. Short term, Apple may continue raking in money on upgrades from the faithful, but long term they're just doubling down on their reputation (among non-worshippers) for being overpriced - when they could probably be attracting a lot more PC users to the fold.
If someone is considering putting down their Wintel security blanket, telling them that they'll need to fork out an extra $400 to match the RAM and storage of their outgoing PC is a good deal-breaker.
Of course most buyers should choose to buy more than base RAM. I have been arguing that here for years now.
But there are buyers (granny email) for whom 8 GB is fine and Mac OS allows 8 GB to work, so the idea that Apple should be sued for not providing more is absurd. Apple's responsibility is to make adequate RAM available to their better laptops (MBPs) and they do. I ordered my M2 MBP with 96 GB RAM and 128 GB is available in M3 MBPs.
Stating the obvious here, but if you need to do intense 3D modeling and such, you wouldn’t buy this machine. It’s perfect for heavy office tasks tho.
So buy Win boxes if you find them acceptable. Do not diss Apple for making different (IMO far preferable) boxes.
Yes, absolutely. Its the second reason i‘m still on a 2011 17“ macbook pro. With the primary reason being that there is no macbook pro bigger than 16“. Other than that, all my gripes with post-2011 mbp have been tackled.
Then again with linux improvements of the last 15 years and business apps all moved to the cloud as webapps, the need for a mac is considerably lower nowadays…
I think people need to take in to account and what all these benchmark comparisons always fail to note for is that anyone who is using a computer to make a living doing Photoshop effects , or export Final Cut or After Effects files would never buy a baseline iMac and even 16 or 24 GB of Ram, would be below minimal specs. So these comparisons are pretty much worthless for an actual real life use case scenario.
A professional user would start at a MacBook Pro or Mac Studio and max it out as much as their budget allows.
For the vast majority of people and families who are just using a basic iMac to watch YouTube, surfing the web or emails or occasionally mess around with Photos - they would never know the difference with 8GB or 16gb of ram - or even know what to do with 10 gigabit Ethernet on the upgraded model, but they would notice the $200 they saved - which is exactly who these budget baseline models target.
A professional user would start at a MacBook Pro or Mac Studio and max it out as much as their budget allows.
For the vast majority of people and families who are just using a basic iMac to watch YouTube, surfing the web or emails or occasionally mess around with Photos - they would never know the difference with 8GB or 16gb of ram - or even know what to do with 10 gigabit Ethernet on the upgraded model, but they would notice the $200 they saved - which is exactly who these budget baseline models target.
You say you’re not defending Apple but you sound like the most fervently religious one in this thread. Are you on Apple’s payroll or something? It’s getting pretty weird.
Exactly this. Yet we keep getting YouTube crap here as "evidence."