Ya, and don’t forget that not only would Apple be knowingly selling “terrible computers” to most people, but they’d also be missing a chance to upsell customers. If you buy the line that Apple is just trying to gouge customers, why wouldn’t Apple be explaining to everyone why they need to pay more for the 16GB RAM model? Why would they even offer the cheaper base model? But instead, Apple has made what I think is a good choice for its customers that allows people with a tighter budget and lesser needs to still be able to benefit from the redesigned MacBook Pro. And another pet peeve of mine is people complaining about Apple and it’s “shameless cash-grabs”. A. Most of the time there’s value that warrants the price tag with Apple products, and they tend to use very expensive hardware for certain aspects of things like sound quality and display quality. I think it’s about akin to getting a laptop with a built-in Bose speaker and then complaining about the price-tag. B. Of course Apple wants money and profit from it, they’re a company with expenses and profits, not 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
Erm the argument extends to any device.
Anyway, are they also suggesting all MacBooks should be sold at max specs? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Streaming 20 video streams relies on hardware decoders and is more a reflection of the horrible Intel GPUs (even the discrete AMD GPU's they were using before the switchover were not top tier) that Apple was using before Apple Silicon rather than a reflection of memory management.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Let's go back to your original post, where you said that the video at the start of this thread provided "objective" proof. You even underlined "objective" to emphasize who closed the case was. There was nothing objective about that video. Using Blender, which suggests 32 gb of RAM, is misleading. According to you, it would then be objectively true that a base configuration should start with 32 gb of RAM. Right? Because that was the standard app usage in this "objective" video.
I'd be perfectly fine suggesting to my wife or my daughter or my professional friends who will never do video production work to buy the base model, if cost were a factor. If cost IS NOT a factor, hell, upgrade! Of course.
And now 7 years is the standard?
Don't make up things I didn't write. I said nothing about blender.
The "objective proof" was about the general perception- even around here except for select people like you- that 8GB is no longer enough base RAM. He demonstrates this in a variety of ways with far-from-Blender-extremes such as having many (but not a ridiculous number of web) tabs open or processing a relatively small number of photos anyone might actually shoot in a day out.
And that guy is no Apple hater. In fact, his videos show GREAT enthusiasm for Apple and he often will offer a critical observation followed by a "but..." and then he somewhat marginalizes his own critical point. If anything- IMO- he leans positive on Apple. He's clearly focused on all things Apple (he burns little-to-no time or energy reviewing PC/Android). What he does do though... is point out tangible negatives, so it's not just one big pile of "practically perfect in every way" gush. As a consumer (first), I value knowing the good AND the bad, so I can appreciate such insights to help me make better decisions. I get no benefit of out extremist gush or extremist contempt "reviews."
Again, good for you if you will advise your loved ones to go with 8GB. I hope those recommendations serve them well.
And yes, since Apple vintages in about 7 years and Macs are a relatively expensive computer to buy, many will buy with an eye towards getting to use the computer for about that long... if not trying to squeeze a few more years beyond that out of them. If you feel that is too long, good for you... but that's Apple's own general vintaging timeline... and you are not seeming like one who can disagree with any Apple choices.
Last edited:
It’s not. It’s a fun aside after making 20+ serious arguments, including spending time on performing a serious test of a real world use case. What did you bring? Where’s your killer argument that a computer that is faster than the one my employer provided me to use for my WORK, should not be allowed to be called PRO?
That’s the best YOU could do?
I don't know. My only gripe is the upgrade pricing; and how it does not make sense price wise across the line up.
I played with the base model in the Apple Store, and basically you have to use the Mac as an iPhone for not running out of memory.
What's the point of M3 being 2 times faster (I believe Apple said this) than M1, when you have to use your M3 like an iPhone?
What's the point of M3 being 2 times faster (I believe Apple said this) than M1, when you have to use your M3 like an iPhone?
Yeah, compare a real pro laptop like Lenovo to a consumer device like a MacBook Pro. Don't forgot to add AppleCare which still sucks in comparison what Lenovo has (which is already included in the price of the Lenovo laptop).
Not at all, I was just presenting a reality, at the beginning of the year there are always a not new laptop announcements. Fact
LOL, I made no claims, just suggestions that if he does a comparison at least he looks at the specs of what he's comparing not just the RAM quantity. LPDDR5X is way faster than anything M1 laptops were compared to, it's not the same ball game.
Taking in considerations how worked up you got and defensive( oh please review screen quality and battery life and all the other areas where a Macbook is killing...) I would say I definitely brought more perspective for the Windows side which obviously bothered you.
I honestly really don't care about anecdotes without any details, taking in consideration your attitude I don't consider your experience and intentions trustworthy anyway so I'm waiting for something I can see, analyze and draw my on conclusions. Thank you.
Why don't you do that? taking in consideration how invested you are in defending Apple. Until next year I will probably forget about this conversation.
Yeah you do sound like a really big Lenovo expert, you surely tested every single model.
The entry level Lenovo laptops are horrible. We get them all the time for rentals. They work for what we use them for, but I would never buy one in a million years.
Games are something kids like to do, and peer pressure is a pusher to be able to do that too...
I would definitely spec out a machine that could play games if I were buying a kid one.
It's meant to extract maximum revenue. The customers that are buying higher-specced models are more likely to be less sensitive to pricing.
The point is to actually use it for doing stuff, instead of looking at activity monitor.
I was being sarcastic. I never claimed to be an expert on anything. I'm just sharing my personal experience. Not good enough for you, that's perfectly fine. Noone in this thread, including the video the thread is based on, provided anything remotely close to being better that what I provided, in terms of comparing an 8GB Mac to a 16GB PC.
EOD.
Last edited:
That applied back when maybe a math coprocessor was being included in a CPU and that part failed but the CPU itself was fine (486 days). What aspect from a lithographic standpoint do you think could fail on an M-series chip that would enable it to address 8GB of RAM but not more?
No way that happens, but since we don't have any proof, it might be better not to speak such generalities.
I'll just say, no way what you said is true in my experience, and I do use Macs and PC's daily. Have you even used a modern 16G PC?
Any kind of test is going to be hard, because they don't have the exact same software, even though they may be called the same, but still, a 16G PC is going to do well, in my experience, of course.
A $399 asus laptop can achieve the same goals of a grandma using an apple silicon Mac as her plucky asus.
We’ve browsing, YouTube, making her calendar have cats on it.
Yea it can and does every day without your grievances.
Yes the apple silicon Mac is great. But every single one is over priced. And kneecapped by ram unless you upgrade for incredibly over inflated prices. I love them, but they are over priced.
I can just as readily extend this argument to pretty much any situation where upselling exists. Why should I have to pay extra to upsize my McDonalds value meal, rather than have it come default with large fries and coke? Can you imagine how much might end up being wasted if everyone was being given more food and drink than they might otherwise be able to finish?
My answer to this is - you have just made a case for why you feel Apple should have 16gb ram as default in their Macs, not why they must do so. At the end of the day, Apple operates on a profit-maximising principle, similar to any other company out there. While this may sound like loaded terminology, the idea underlying the strategy is straightforward. Instead of Apple including a certain amount of “tax” or premium in a product’s price to maintain a specific gross margin percentage, I believe Apple prices its products in a way that maximises grosss margin (cost of goods subtracted from revenue) and revenue on an absolute basis.
At the same time, when it comes to how Apple prices various accessories like dongles, watch bands, and iPad keyboards, the company isn’t relying on an Apple tax. Instead, accessories by their very nature have high gross margins given that the items are sold to customers looking to personalize their experience. I will argue that a similar philosophy applies to Mac memory and storage upgrades. While those upgrades are indeed profitable for Apple, the fact that Apple charges the prices they do is not a sign of Apple users being held hostage and forced to pay an Apple Tax. Instead, positioning certain items as accessories or upgrades plays a role in Apple keeping entry-level product pricing low for the mass market.
It's easy for anyone here to say "Apple makes so much money. They can easily afford to include more ram or an extra charger for free and still make a ton of money", and it's hard to argue against being given free stuff which doesn't cost me anything. While that may be true, it also represents a slippery slope. You are basically saying that everyone should be given more ram and storage in their laptops regardless of whether they need it or not, just so you can get your ram upgrade for free.
There is no question that Apple has a large base of loyal, satisfied users. Contrary to how some may frame it, we are not in any way being held captive by Apple, and therefore forced to pay high Apple prices. It’s easy to look at Apple pricing and take a cynical view that management is trying to squeeze as much profit as possible from its users. However, I maintain that Apple’s incentive isn’t to milk users for all they can but rather to expand the Apple user base and provide users great experiences.
This is why Apple is able to garner the lion's share of profits in so many different markets. Not by overcharging for ram (the money they earn from this is honestly small potatoes), but by monetizing premium experiences much more effectively and efficiently than anyone else.
If none of you can see this, then I can only say - you don't understand business in general, you have never understood how Apple worked, and you (sadly) never will.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
You are making Blender "the star" of this "misleading" video. Blender is just one of several taxing apps to put brand new Macs to the test. As an interested consumer, I'm interested in knowing how much "latest & greatest" can handle. So the Blender tests and the crashes that resulted on the 8GB (but not on the 16GB) version offered some insights- at least I found valuable- too.
Yes, lighter tasks still worked... just not as fast, not as fluid... and leaned on SWAP which may become something or nothing: TBD. If it becomes something- like Fusion drives- TBD ends up requiring the purchase of a replacement computer in full instead of replacing only the failing "fusion"-only drive inside. I did not write anything about lighter tasks failing.
I did not write 8GB of ram is "terrible" or "unusable" or "embarrassing." That's you- AGAIN- making up words as if I shared them. In the prior post, I acknowledged that I own a Mac myself with 4GB RAM and it gets tasks done. Did you miss that? I even suggested- perhaps right or wrong- that maybe a 2GB or 1GB RAM Mac could run, probably with lots of SWAP. Did you miss that? Only one of us is writing extremes... even if that involves making up extremes as if the other wrote them.
And sling your "ad hominem" and "hyperbole" tags to your hearts content but it only alters the perception of what other people write for those who wish to only see things you see them.
Last edited:
Of course the "experience" of somebody so invested in defending 8GB in a 1600 bucks supposedly "Pro laptop" is not good enough. I already read stories like yours from users with exactly the same type of profile, not a coincidence.
By the way the Lenovo I was taking is entirely made of aluminum, its a very nice laptop for 1000 bucks and comes with an OLED screen and 32GB LPDDR5X for that price, but it must be terrible somehow, all Windows laptops are just terrible.)
Last edited:
A 16gb high end pc laptop performs similarly to a 16gb apple silicon laptop. My i9 $659 micro pc with 16gb of ram puts my m2 Mac mini with 8GB to shame. Which is why I haven’t used the m2 in about three weeks.
Yea anyone defending apples marketing of planning your next upgrade for you when you buy an 8GB pro device is hilarious.
Depends on where/when it prevents use. In this case the RAM limitation will stop most multitasking or any sort of heavy use, which means the bottleneck in this case is making the purchase of a fast CPU somewhat pointless.
I provided my experience earlier in the thread, where navigating the same 600MB Powerpoint file lags less on. my 8GB Macbook Air than on my 16GB (newer and more expensive) Thinkpad. I'm not disregarding your experience, but this has been mine, consistently. Just like some are requiring me to provide more data rather than being "anecdotal" (even though I provided specific information on the setup), I could do the same - but that would be out of curiosity, not from trying to say you are wrong. So far, I have only seen examples of non-trivial work being faster on a PC, nothing to back up the claim that "everyday office work" works better on any 16GB Windows PC. Showing screenshots of Activity Monitor "proving" that the RAM is maxed out, does not equal a comparison of experience of use.