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
Just a not economical and not environment friendly device with soldered ram and soldered ssd that now serves as excuse for bottlenecks and high ram and ssd upgrade prices.
Apple knew that customers used to buy their lowest spec Laptops and iMacs and order RAM and SSD/HDD elsewhere for twice/triple less the price with same or better performance.
This is how they tackled this sales issue, which is now backfiring over and over every year.
A while back because I was curious, I did comparisons between each of the various models of Macs that Apple sold. I didn't publish it anywhere because it was so close to the M3 being released and making those calculations moot. One of the surprising things to me was that, compared to a Mac mini, "upgrading" to a 14" MBP enclosure was the exact same price as "upgrading" to a 15" MBA enclosure—to wit, equivalently specced 14" MBP and 15" MBA models cost the same, even though IMO the 14" MBP enclosure blew away the 15" MBA. They each cost $700 more than an equivalently specced Mac Mini.
Assuming Apple keeps the same price points for the MBAs and Mac minis, however, the base M3 MBP is actually $800 more than the equivalently specced Mac mini, even though the M3 Pro MBP is only $700 more than an equivalently specced M2 Pro Mac mini. (For reference: M2 8/512 Mac Mini: $799, M3 8/512 13" MBP: $1599, M2 Pro 16/512 Mac Mini: $1299, M3 Pro 18/512 MBP: $1999.)
Why do I mention this? Well, it seems like there is so much demand for a low-end machine with the MBP name that Apple felt comfortable charging a $100 premium for it. It really "should" cost $1499. All this back and forth over whether 8GB of RAM is sufficient seems misplaced given the apparent demand for the machine—Apple wouldn't be charging a $100 premium if it didn't feel it could get it.
I've seen a few comments about how the M3 MBP is a "Pro" machine and thus should do "Pro" workflows—I think that's a misunderstanding of what "Pro" means to Apple in this case. It doesn't mean "professional" in the case of the plain M3 MBP. It means "nice". And undeniably, the M3 MBP is a nicer machine than the M3 MBA will be.
Assuming Apple keeps the same price points for the MBAs and Mac minis, however, the base M3 MBP is actually $800 more than the equivalently specced Mac mini, even though the M3 Pro MBP is only $700 more than an equivalently specced M2 Pro Mac mini. (For reference: M2 8/512 Mac Mini: $799, M3 8/512 13" MBP: $1599, M2 Pro 16/512 Mac Mini: $1299, M3 Pro 18/512 MBP: $1999.)
Why do I mention this? Well, it seems like there is so much demand for a low-end machine with the MBP name that Apple felt comfortable charging a $100 premium for it. It really "should" cost $1499. All this back and forth over whether 8GB of RAM is sufficient seems misplaced given the apparent demand for the machine—Apple wouldn't be charging a $100 premium if it didn't feel it could get it.
I've seen a few comments about how the M3 MBP is a "Pro" machine and thus should do "Pro" workflows—I think that's a misunderstanding of what "Pro" means to Apple in this case. It doesn't mean "professional" in the case of the plain M3 MBP. It means "nice". And undeniably, the M3 MBP is a nicer machine than the M3 MBA will be.
And this probably can reflect what people truly want, something apple choose to ignore and continue to press on their “8=16” fallacy.
It's more the price of it than it is the name of the machine. At $1600, you really don't expect to be getting 8GB of RAM. That's the kind of spec you'd expect in 2012, not in 2023.
For those who are near an Apple store or can easily build to order, it's basically an $1800 to get a reasonable spec for the machine. But the problem here is that a lot of third party retailers often don't stock the RAM-upgraded models, and so most the deep sales on the base models are going to be for 8GB systems.
Apple being greedy again just like Apple were under John Sculley. They forgot how to make the best computer for customers.
The test is completely flawed with regards to the question of RAM for light users.
Those of us who say that 8Gb is enough for a lot of users means users who don't use applications like Lightroom, almost any other Adobe software, Final Cut Pro, Logic, ProTools or Blender.
Think about people using f.ex. Office, Teams and the occasional editing of photos and videos in Photos or iMovie. And similar software which isn't memory intensive.
Those of us who say that 8Gb is enough for a lot of users means users who don't use applications like Lightroom, almost any other Adobe software, Final Cut Pro, Logic, ProTools or Blender.
Think about people using f.ex. Office, Teams and the occasional editing of photos and videos in Photos or iMovie. And similar software which isn't memory intensive.
And being apple is the only manufacturer to sell macOS, monopoly fuels arbitrary price increases. Realistically speaking, what can customer do if their work requires a Mac of some sort? They have to pay even if apple charges $24000 for a base model with 2GB of RAM or $89000 for a 16GB model. Doesn’t matter to apple either way.
A lot of Mac users would prefer 8Gb of RAM with today's starting prices instead of increasing both the price and the RAM for the base configuration.
Meanwhile in the real world...
"Pro" users gather up their requirements, configure the machine they need, and buy it. What the specifications of the entry level are mean very little; of greater concern are the specs on the high end. If you're making money with these products $200 (or $2000) this way or that just isn't a big concern.
"Pro" users gather up their requirements, configure the machine they need, and buy it. What the specifications of the entry level are mean very little; of greater concern are the specs on the high end. If you're making money with these products $200 (or $2000) this way or that just isn't a big concern.
If you’re going to insinuate MS Surface or Lenovo Thinkpad with 16GB is a better deal then that should have been the test comparison.
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
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
We are not all in agreement about that. There are lots of people arguing in many threads that 8GB is plenty for "most" users. Check out the essay in post #1 in this thread entitled "Apple is not going to stop starting at 8GB anytime soon. And that's good" as an example of NOT "all of us in agreement."
What it "proves" by macOS itself adapting for insufficient RAM is that Apple knows base RAM should be greater than 8GB. macOS itself needs more of it to operate as effectively as possible.
Less engaged consumers will only learn this in the hardest of ways in the next few years. Apple could spend that little extra per Mac- which we know is nowhere remotely close to what they charge for the upgrade based upon what 16GB of DDR5 RAM costs at retail and DELIGHT ALL CUSTOMERS (those who know and those who are in for that rude awakening).
But by all means: keep passionately defending a rich(est) company in the world because why should consumers care about consumer value or utility? All that matters is maximizing profit and delighting those shareholders. Hopefully, they cut it to 4GB RAM in the next model to eek even more, ever-expanding margin out of us all? While they are at it, maybe they could get rid of onboard storage and let us rent storage in iCloud? But please Apple: raise the price for that innovation because shareholders need to feed their families.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
The video tested two Macs, but you could provide link to a video testing a Mac vs a Windows PC.
16Gb will affect performance for memory intensive applications as tested here.
For a lot of users who are using mostly Office and similar applications, the difference in performance might not be present at all and in many cases be good enough.
I read Apple’s claim as comparing their technology to Intel / PC technolog. This comparison missed the mark. There is no way any company is going to say that less memory in their line is going to work better or the same. It’s illogical assertion
How about ram at 8
Hard drives at 256
How about bug infested OS releases
How about slowing older machines with new OS
How about killing off third-party repair shops with insane requirements
How about limiting iMac repairs to in-store
How about iPhone updates being a nominal at best
How about the lack of real updates to any of Apple software
How about the lack of address verification on Contacts or address boo
It’s not about the MacPro. In consistent hubris at all levels.
It depends on which applications you are using.
If you're only using Word, PowerPoint, Excel with simple spreadsheets, Outlook and the occasional editing of photos in Photos, you'll not notice much difference if any at all.
The videos test memory intensive applications which perform better with more memory, of course they'll benefit from more memory.
In my usage, the difference is minimal but then I don't work with photos, videos or any such thing except for very simple stuff.
just saying I have a Galaxy Tab S9+ 12GB ram, 256GB storage, touch screen, s-pen, fingerprint and face unlock, wireless dex, better OLED screen, 5G cellular, and etc. And it cost less than these new Mac Books with more features and higher base ram. We have high inflation because people have more money than sense on their purchases.
There's objective proof that 8GB is not enough in the base model- and we all know it if we are able to think as consumers (first)- but I suspect by the time this thread closes, the messenger will be killed, skewered, tarred & feathered, etc. I suspect pitchforks and torches are already in fan hands and they will soon be storming the castle.
updated (because a few defenders are twisting the intent in latter posts)
It's proof you benefit from more memory if you're using memory intensive applications like Lightroom and Final Cut Pro.
It's not proof if you're using Office, Teams and Safari using simple web applications.