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

[sevoneone]

The other problem with the “base” configurations, is that with M1 there were very few compromises across the range and they were all overtly apparent: mostly CPU and GPU cores and memory bandwidth, things people can mostly quantify. But the big thing was that people picked up that first base model M1 Air with 7 GPU cores, 8GB of RAM and 256GB SSD and absolutely raved about it. It was the notebook to beat and the price king because you got a very capable computer at the entry level price that could handle just about anything you could throw at it from coding to 4k video editing without falling on its face. Same with the 14” M1 Pro MacBook Pro. The base model with 8 cpu cores and 14 GPU cores and 16GB of RAM, a screen that is still better than any competitor, amazing sound… and it regularly got marked down by $150 to $250 by retailers. It was a powerhouse in terms of value. It was well established that Apple Silicon was an amazing value even at the entry level of each tier.

Fast forward… base models still have the CPU/GPU variances, but now they are also hobbled with SSDs that are half the speed across the board, memory that is only 75% as fast as it was on the previous generation and sneaky moves like changing out 2 performance cores for efficiency cores in the case of the M3 Pro/Max. Stack that with a base amount of RAM and storage that has not kept up with the times, and you’ve got “base” model machines that are un-proportionately worse than those with an overpriced minimal upgrade. Very much the opposite in value of what the M1 Macs were when they were released.

Most people do not keep up with tech news like the average MR user. We’ve had two product cycles with a lot of hype: M1 for being a big leap forward and amazing value, M2 brought the redesigned MacBook Air. That’s what most consumers looking to buy a Mac right now knows as they are staring at the new M3 Mac’s on display. They have no idea how much the value of the base models has wilted away.

I am having a really hard time not convincing myself that the spec changes in the M3 line up than Apple trying squeeze customers up the product ladder: “8GB not enough ram? Sure, you could upgrade it to 16, that used to make sense, but $150 more also gets you to a Pro chip with big CPU/GPU boost and an extra 2-whole-GBs! Many of our customers that are media professionals found the M1 and M2 Pro Mac’s to be more than enough for their workflows, but don’t worry, we screwed around with the new Pro chip enough that it doesn’t make sense for them to go for anything other than the Max model now. It’s only like $60/mo more on our 0% financing anyway, and they can take their spouse to Taco Bell with the extra $30 in 3% cash back to soften the financial blow.”

 

[Wildkraut]

Increasing the base memory in MacBook Pros won't push the computer industri forward either.
We don't need Apple to push the industry. We just want them to create good products and being expensive.

Ohh "...and being expensive.", ka-ching🥳🤑, do you mind me selling you the newest MacBook Pro 8GB ermmm 16GB expensively?

 

[hans1972]

I already knew this. 8GB on MBP M1 just didn't work for my Photos library with 150K+ photos/vides. It just lagged like crazy. I knew the RAM was the bottleneck when I looked at the stats. It just can't handle it.

My Intel iMac 2020 27" i7 with 64GB is cheaper than this ($1049 + $200 ram on sale), but handles this with ease. Currently I have Music App, Chrome, Photos app opened and already using 20GB. I can't imagine how fun it'll be on 8GB. I'm not even 'doing' stuff. Just having things open and casually browsing along.

When a machine has more memory available, it will use more memory. The operating system will try to use all available RAM.

You can't test memory usage on a 64 Gb RAM machine and predict how much it applications will use on a 8Gb machine.

 

[alexonline]

Does anyone remember the 4GB 13’ Retina Pro from Late 2013? Lasted one cycle before being replaced with an 8GB model. Was much cheaper though. Wonder if that’s what will happen here once the Air gets the M3 refresh…

I remember when the 11-inch MBA came with 2GB RAM 😂😂

 

[Wildkraut]

The reason we defend it is because we know Apple would increase the price of the base configuration if they increased the RAM too early.

So for those user's who 8Gb is enough, they would need to pay more for a benefit they won't notice most of the time.

But didn't you just say you want them being expensive? I don't get it!

 

[hans1972]

And for these people, Apple offers the MacBook Air or - even more likely - an iPad. Macs labeled Pro should start with 16GB of RAM. Eventually, they probably will. But only after the rest of the computing world moves on to 32GB.

Apple also offers the low-level MacBook Pro for people who

* has to abide by insane enterprise purchasing rules which require a "pro" whether they need it or not
* managers who think they're important and need something with "pro" in the name
* like the bigger or better screen
* have always bought the pro because they think they need it, but want to spend as little money as possible

These are not small groups.

 

[k1121j]

Some people need a Toyota Camry. Some need a Toyota Supra. Apple sells both, pro branding aside.

It’s a premium brand. Shouldn’t come as crap to start with.

 

[hans1972]

I doubt that people that casually browse the web will buy a Pro version. If I buy a Proversion I assume the base model will be capable of doing those with ease and not in need of another upgrade on top.

Lot's of enterprises have standardised on MacBook Pros and trying to convince a purchasing department that an Air is just a good is like trying to get peace in the Middle East.

So you just buy the cheapest MacBook Pro which the user need can get buy with.

 

[Wildkraut]

Some people need a Toyota Camry. Some need a Toyota Supra. Apple sells both, pro branding aside.

No, what Apple sells is:

 

[hans1972]

Nobody would complain if Apple took away the 8gb option. Stop lying.

We would complain if they increased the base configuration price with $200 and that's what Apple would do.

The reason we want the 8Gb version is because it's cheaper and certain user's don't need more.

 

[YonTom]

The other problem with the “base” configurations, is that with M1 there were very few compromises across the range and they were all overtly apparent: mostly CPU and GPU cores and memory bandwidth, things people can mostly quantify. But the big thing was that people picked up that first base model M1 Air with 7 GPU cores, 8GB of RAM and 256GB SSD and absolutely raved about it. It was the notebook to beat and the price king because you got a very capable computer at the entry level price that could handle just about anything you could throw at it from coding to 4k video editing without falling on its face. Same with the 14” M1 Pro MacBook Pro. The base model with 8 cpu cores and 14 GPU cores and 16GB of RAM, a screen that is still better than any competitor, amazing sound… and it regularly got marked down by $150 to $250 by retailers. It was a powerhouse in terms of value. It was well established that Apple Silicon was an amazing value even at the entry level of each tier.

Fast forward… base models still have the CPU/GPU variances, but now they are also hobbled with SSDs that are half the speed across the board, memory that is only 75% as fast as it was on the previous generation and sneaky moves like changing out 2 performance cores for efficiency cores in the case of the M3 Pro/Max. Stack that with a base amount of RAM and storage that has not kept up with the times, and you’ve got “base” model machines that are un-proportionately worse than those with an overpriced minimal upgrade. Very much the opposite in value of what the M1 Macs were when they were released.

Most people do not keep up with tech news like the average MR user. We’ve had two product cycles with a lot of hype: M1 for being a big leap forward and amazing value, M2 brought the redesigned MacBook Air. That’s what most consumers looking to buy a Mac right now knows as they are staring at the new M3 Mac’s on display. They have no idea how much the value of the base models has wilted away.

I am having a really hard time not convincing myself that the spec changes in the M3 line up than Apple trying squeeze customers up the product ladder: “8GB not enough ram? Sure, you could upgrade it to 16, that used to make sense, but $150 more also gets you to a Pro chip with big CPU/GPU boost and an extra 2-whole-GBs! Many of our customers that are media professionals found the M1 and M2 Pro Mac’s to be more than enough for their workflows, but don’t worry, we screwed around with the new Pro chip enough that it doesn’t make sense for them to go for anything other than the Max model now. It’s only like $60/mo more on our 0% financing anyway, and they can take their spouse to Taco Bell with the extra $30 in 3% cash back to soften the financial blow.”

Well this is true up to a point. While they are certainly encouraging people to go for the M3 max (SCARY FAST!!! BUY IT!!) the M3 pro has brought substantial battery life improvements with respect to M2 Pro. As a non-power user, I’d rather go with scary lasting battery.

 

[ikramerica]

People are really conflating side-by-side 8gb m3 vs 16gb m3 performance with the quote about 8gb m3 vs 16gb pc. I'd like to see that comparison to back up the quote. I think it is possible. The unified architecture is for a reason. RAM is a cache, not a storage, and while people seem fixated on absolute RAM size, performance is actually a function of both size and speed of RAM, Storage, CPU caches, and bus speeds.

RAM is a cache. Exactly. Ehich is why I have been saying for a year that Apple needs to include a second level RAM swap between the SSD and the unified RAM. The M series unified architecture limits the capacity of the RAM and adds cost. But a second tier of RAM as swap (disk cache) even if little faster than the SSD would allow for higher specs AND reduced wear on the SSD, another concern many have with the M architecture and the heavy reliance on SSD swap files.

 

[reklex]

Even the fact they cheapened on the fans is odd.

Trillion dollar company btw, the money comes from all these damn criminal SSD and RAM upgrades.

 

[Student of Life]

We would complain if they increased the base configuration price with $200 and that's what Apple would do.

The reason we want the 8Gb version is because it's cheaper and certain user's don't need more.

That’s why Apple makes the Air, 8gb is perfectly fine for that product. If one is making a pro product 8gb makes no sense considering it’s not upgradable.

 

[jkozlow3]

Just for kicks, I just did a video capture using macOS's integrated app where:
1) I opened 22 tabs on Safari, 5 of them were 4K YouTube videos playing, not paused.
2) Proceeded to open the new Take a Day Trip Logic Pro session with 81 audio+virtual instrument tracks and pressed play to continue opening files and apps
3) Clicked on the "About this Mac" app to demonstrate it's and 8GB RAM Macbook Air, and fired up activity monitor to demonstrate that RAM is basically filled up, but the system is extremely stable and smooth
4) Opened AutoCAD with the machine's RAM filled up, loaded a real life DWG file, and switched to 3D. It did hiccup once during the 2D to 3D camera animation, but panning, zooming and drafting worked smoothly after it was fully in 3D view
5) To top it all, I didn't remember that the Grindstone game was running until I checked the dock
My MacBook ran smoothly except for the minor hiccup when I turned AutoCAD's 2D viewer to 3D, all of these tasks were done while doing a video capture with no special app or video hardware. I'm attaching the screen caps since the video weights around 1.2GB, and I love posting this type of stuff. People saying 8GB on Apple Silicon is "a laughable experience" are talking nonsense. They are great and more than capable machines. No buyers remorse at all.
PS: I said it was a 2021 M1 Air... it's actually a December 2020 M1 Air.

It's a different story when you leave all that stuff running for a long time vs. freshly opened. I got rid of my 8GB M1 MBA because 8GB wasn't cutting it and I'm not a pro user (a tab whore perhaps). Things run MUCH better on my 16GB MBA.

 

[Kal Madda]

I am bat man

Read in gruff BatMan voice:

“I’m whatever Gotham needs me to be. If Gotham needs an iPhone, I’ll be an iPhone. If Gotham needs an iPad, I’ll be an iPad. If Gotham needs a MacBook, I’ll be a MacBook. If Gotham needs a Mac Mini, I’ll be a Mac Mini. If Gotham needs an iMac, I’ll be an iMac. If Gotham needs a Mac Studio, I’ll be a Mac Studio. If Gotham needs a Mac Pro, I’ll be a Mac Pro. I’m whatever Gotham needs…”

 

[AirpodsNow]

8GB is not enough for running applications like that. I think we all should know that by now. If you're doing FC, Blender, C4D or Adobe anything, you get as much RAM as you can afford. So no one is really going to buy an 8GB model for that. It's kind of miss-leading to even make a performance comparison using it. Other than to clearly state the obvious. Don't buy lowest end Mac pro for this kind of work. If you're not doing that kind of work. 8GB is fine for most basic tasks. Which is why it is an option. If you're in school, and need/want a Mac Book. This is clearly aimed at that group. Writers, or content consumption. NOT for creation, and heavy multitasking.

Apple stating that 8GB is like Windows with 16. Is factoring in features that exist on the Mac that can alleviate some of the memory limitations. But, it's always better to have real RAM available to the system over SSD swapping.

So another note to self. Don't buy the least powerful Mac and expect it to work miracles.
Know what type of work you're going to be doing with it, and purchase accordingly. All of my Mac's (ALL OF THEM) in the past 10 years have had 32GB or MORE of RAM. They don't need the highest end CPU (iMac Pro is an 8 Core with 32GB of RAM. nMac Pro has 64GB of RAM as it was upgradable). All of my MacBook Pro's have 32GB of ram. Even this M2 Max has 32. My M1 Max Studio has 32GB, and so on. I have not experienced any memory issues or speed issues or any issues (except heat on those intel mac's).

Should Apple sell ONLY 16GB as a base? You can argue that. But, having 8 as an option lowers the price of entry for those that really don't need more. And if it was taken away, others would complain that it's too expensive.
And others will complain that Apple should just eat the cost increase. And as a Shareholder I say NO to that.

The reason apple sells them is that there are people that buy them, and although people keep saying a pro machine should be at least 16gb for their pro work, we just also have to admit that a lot of people Buy these not for the pro work but because it looks pro, so it works. what to do When a brand becomes so popular that a lot of buyers buy it for the brand rather the actual performance?

 

[ArkSingularity]

RAM is a cache. Exactly. Ehich is why I have been saying for a year that Apple needs to include a second level RAM swap between the SSD and the unified RAM. The M series unified architecture limits the capacity of the RAM and adds cost. But a second tier of RAM as swap (disk cache) even if little faster than the SSD would allow for higher specs AND reduced wear on the SSD, another concern many have with the M architecture and the heavy reliance on SSD swap files.

At that point, it'd be far better just to add more RAM. It'd probably be more expensive to try to come up with a novel "RAM as a cache" architecture than it would be to just add more RAM.

This is because swap on the disk is not random access. It is done on a page-by-page basis (in 16KB chunks on Apple Silicon). When a page that contains a requested memory address isn't in RAM, it triggers a page fault, gets the OS involved, and has the OS grab the entire page and put it back into memory. This is a pretty time consuming process on the time scales CPUs operate on, and when disk latency is considered, it can take several hundred thousand CPU cycles easily (versus about 300 cycles for just a RAM access). Even if the disk had zero access latency, it would still be several thousand CPU cycles easily just in context switches alone to get the OS involved.

So if you wanted a second tier of RAM to really be any good for performance with very large data sets, you'd have to make it random access rather than having it act as a page file, which would mean you are basically just adding more RAM. Otherwise, it would just be another swap, and swap (of any kind, even if you literally used another bank of LPDDR4 RAM to store the page file) is going to be orders of magnitude slower than RAM for access latency.

 

[Analog Kid]

I really don't understand how anyone can watch a MaxTech video without climbing the walls. The breathless delivery of that stream of utter nonsense is really, really hard to take.

"I bought the base model of something and ran two separate web browsers streaming multiple videos each, exported an 8k multicam video project and tried to generate a 500 megapixel panorama image because that's what real world productivity means". No, that's just a good approximation of the clinical definition of ADHD.

"I've never seen" Cinebench run slower on an 8GB machine before? Could it be because Cinebench 2024 has a minimum RAM requirement of 16GB and R23 was 4GB? How can they not have taken the time to look at that?

Actually, I know how, there's no reward for accuracy...

Blender has a recommended RAM of 32GB, but they'll try to run while multitasking on 8GB anyway.

I'm surprised they didn't try to run a real time weather model with a nuclear sim in the background, because "multitasking".

There is absolutely nothing to learn here except that MaxTech has no idea what they're doing.

 

[eifelbube]

As low as memory costs are now, why would Apple cheap out like this?

Indeed. Not to downplay its performance advantages … but with unified memory, MX chip generation users have become Apple‘s RAM hostages

 

[slx]

'640K of memory should be enough for anybody.' (c) Bill Gates

 

[Aries79]

We would complain if they increased the base configuration price with $200 and that's what Apple would do.

The reason we want the 8Gb version is because it's cheaper and certain user's don't need more.

The users that do not need more, do not need a MacBook Pro in the first place: the Air is enough for them.

 

[dgdosen]

I really don't understand how anyone can watch a MaxTech video without climbing the walls. The breathless delivery of that stream of utter nonsense is really, really hard to take.

"I bought the base model of something and ran two separate web browsers streaming multiple videos each, exported an 8k multicam video project and tried to generate a 500 megapixel panorama image because that's what real world productivity means". No, that's just a good approximation of the clinical definition of ADHD.

"I've never seen" Cinebench run slower on an 8GB machine before? Could it be because Cinebench 2024 has a minimum RAM requirement of 16GB and R23 was 4GB? How can they not have taken the time to look at that?

Actually, I know how, there's no reward for accuracy...

Blender has a recommended RAM of 32GB, but they'll try to run while multitasking on 8GB anyway.

I'm surprised they didn't try to a real time weather model with a nuclear sim in the background, because "multitasking".

There is absolutely nothing to learn here except that MaxTech has no idea what they're doing.

I'm no fan of Max videos, but this was a reasonable approximation, pretty straight forward, not requiring technical expertise, and pretty damning to Apple.

Multitasking is multitasking. I don't find fault in it and am glad someone took the time to do a side-by-side comparison of a bad flaw.

 

[spcopsmac21]

Read in gruff BatMan voice:

“I’m whatever Gotham needs me to be. If Gotham needs an iPhone, I’ll be an iPhone. If Gotham needs an iPad, I’ll be an iPad. If Gotham needs a MacBook, I’ll be a MacBook. If Gotham needs a Mac Mini, I’ll be a Mac Mini. If Gotham needs an iMac, I’ll be an iMac. If Gotham needs a Mac Studio, I’ll be a Mac Studio. If Gotham needs a Mac Pro, I’ll be a Mac Pro. I’m whatever Gotham needs…”

Apple competing with my Wayne TeckBook Pro is bad for business. We have 400GB of Ram.

 

[boak]

I'm no fan of Max videos, but this was a reasonable approximation, pretty straight forward, not requiring technical expertise, and pretty damning to Apple.

Multitasking is multitasking. I don't find fault in it and am glad someone took the time to do a side-by-side comparison of a bad flaw.

Reasonable approximation?? 🤣🤣🤣