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
Got a video showing he got the info he presented in this video wrong?
Still waiting to see a counter from those people who continue to disparage his work.
And I’m not saying you shouldn’t get a 32GB configuration… You should get whatever suits your needs. I think it’s worthwhile having a cheaper lower configuration option for Pros who don’t need 16GB of RAM, but still want all the other hardware benefits of the new MacBook Pros. I don’t think the existence of a cheaper 8GB option hurts anybody.That's good that you have experience with both. But we're just datapoints and I need lots of RAM for what I do. My smallest machine currently is 32G and it goes up from there.
There really isn't anything magical about RAM in either type of machine, it takes what it takes, and both are very similar under the hood with regards to paging/swapping/memory handling. Unless you go way back before modern virtual memory..
No $1600 computer should have 8GB RAM. Forget the name.
Of course, ignoring that said $1600 computer has a very high quality display, high quality sound system, great battery life that’s completely unrivaled by anything anyone else is offering, etc…
Nobody here is ignoring that, all of us are very aware of what the Macbook Pro offers. The point is that Apple is putting all of those nice features in a very expensive device that could be much more capable for very little additional cost to them. The value proposition for many potential customers is thrown off because Apple doesn't offer sufficient RAM at reasonable price points.
Exactly.
Nine years ago Apple offered 8GB in their base 13" MBP. Nine years ago. At some point they need to make the jump, and the longer they wait the worse the optics are.
It's unnecessary Apple, you have enough cash to show at this issue to avoid the negative press.
To be fair, they did push the base SSD to 512GB, so maybe the RAM upgrade will come next year..?🤞🤞🤞
OP I was responding to was effectively ignoring those things by arguing that by making RAM the most important factor in his calculus. He literally said “no $1600 computer should have 8GB RAM” which ignores all of the other aspects of the computer. What if that $1600 goes towards a really really nice display? RAM isn’t the only metric, and isn’t even necessarily the most important metric for many people when they’re choosing a computer, so to go around like “nobody should have the option to get really nice premium hardware for cheaper by getting a lower RAM configuration device” is just a bit ridiculous…
Ps even if your argument is that it’s supposedly overpriced for the amount of RAM available, completely removing the option doesn’t really help people. Would you be opposed to it if they offered an 8GB RAM MacBook Pro for $1400? If you think the RAM is too little for too much, that’s hardly the same argument as “a lower RAM option shouldn’t exist at all”.
What’s wrong if 8 GB still works?Exactly.
Nine years ago Apple offered 8GB in their base 13" MBP. Nine years ago. At some point they need to make the jump, and the longer they wait the worse the optics are.
It's unnecessary Apple, you have enough cash to show at this issue to avoid the negative press.
To be fair, they did push the base SSD to 512GB, so maybe the RAM upgrade will come next year..?🤞🤞🤞
Also, they didn’t push the base SSD because they think 256 GB is insufficient for a base model. It’s just a way to increase the ASP by forcing a SSD upgrade. The base price has that upgrade baked in.
Clickbait does not necessarily mean wrong, it means clickbait and usually sensationalizing and misleading.
In the early days of computing (late '70s and '80s) computing was text based. Over time, we moved from text to graphic interfaces, written data to audio, to video. All of those transitions increased the need for memory. But we're at the pinnacle now. There are no new media types coming that will necessarily require more RAM. There is no reason to think that memory needs will rise forever from this point. The only thing I see ahead is more use of AI, which may or may not need more memory. If it does, then the industry will transition accordingly.
AI will likely push the base level graphics we see in all processors going forward. Apple currently has a distinct advantage in this area. The Ryzen 5700G doesn't even come close and AMD has never formally announced a successor.
Intel has been the company most reluctant to do so while the entire industry is seeing the advantages of having the strongest iGPU possible that won't sacrifice CPU performance too much.
But yes, RAM requirements will continue to creep up as software continues to be more demanding. The more the better if you plan to keep your system for a long time and have applications that would benefit from it. In fact software I run would feasibly run well on old 2006 C2D MacBooks, but the 3GB RAM limit prevents me from doing so.
Last edited:
In my opinion the new Apple Silicon are absolutely incredible and some have gauged the lowest-end Silicon as being superior to the last generation MacBook Pro that I'm typing on which cost $2.5k three years ago. All of it is fantastic beyond what we could have expected back then, except for baseline storage and RAM specs. Add to that you cannot upgrade these computers later on, Apple has effectively created artificial obsolescence or inflated price gouging on components which are not terrible expensive.
Add to that the measures they took to hinder user repairability, what we've got is an ecosystem of greed and waste. THIS is what I think the most of us are railing about. Not that it's illegal or we don't have other options, but that Apple's not even trying to hide it anymore.
Add to that the measures they took to hinder user repairability, what we've got is an ecosystem of greed and waste. THIS is what I think the most of us are railing about. Not that it's illegal or we don't have other options, but that Apple's not even trying to hide it anymore.
Last edited:
No you wouldn't. It doesn't cost Apple $200 to install 8 GB more, they charge you significantly more. Most laptop 32 GB RAM modules cost significantly less than $200 and can be installed down the road.
What's more is that these computers have a vastly shorter useful life than had you gotten 16 GB. You're measuring how good these are by today's standards, except that they're not upgradable! What happens if the next Apple OS demands 8+ GB of RAM? Suddenly all the baseline configuration are effectively obsolete.
Then what? You'll need to replace your otherwise perfectly good computers that much sooner, feeding Apple's endless greed. And in the end the only one that wins is Apple either for forcing users to future proof their computers for a premium or replace the baseline that much sooner.
To all of the “Apple charges too much for RAM folks”:
How does removing the cheapest RAM option further your cause? If Apple offered a MacBook Pro with 8GB for $1400, would you oppose that as well? Removing the base 8GB RAM option wouldn’t necessarily make the 16GB RAM option any cheaper, often when the base spec increases, so does the price tag. If you’re complaint is that Apple charges too much for RAM, then why not keep it at that instead of insisting Apple make no 8GB option for those who only want or need 8GB?
How does removing the cheapest RAM option further your cause? If Apple offered a MacBook Pro with 8GB for $1400, would you oppose that as well? Removing the base 8GB RAM option wouldn’t necessarily make the 16GB RAM option any cheaper, often when the base spec increases, so does the price tag. If you’re complaint is that Apple charges too much for RAM, then why not keep it at that instead of insisting Apple make no 8GB option for those who only want or need 8GB?
The SSD situation was even worse... base should be 1TB already and we're talking about how we're happy it's not 256GB in 2023!Exactly.
Nine years ago Apple offered 8GB in their base 13" MBP. Nine years ago. At some point they need to make the jump, and the longer they wait the worse the optics are.
It's unnecessary Apple, you have enough cash to show at this issue to avoid the negative press.
To be fair, they did push the base SSD to 512GB, so maybe the RAM upgrade will come next year..?🤞🤞🤞
Apple Vision Pro has entered the chat. Kind of kidding, kind of not. You are insightful in that we have graphic interfaces running on "retina" screens, so are kind of reaching the end of one arc. My 5k screen is already sharper than my aging eyes can distinguish at normal seated use position (and I can only barely pick out the pixels even if I get very close to the display). And my modest M2 Pro mini can easily push pixels to it for any of my productivity uses and also any video watching entertainment. Some sort of end has been reached (and actually was reached several years ago since my 2018 mini with 8gb of RAM also displayed fine to my Apple Studio display (side note: it did not run fine with all the apps going, so I upgraded it to 32gb of RAM)).
But you mention AI and I'm sure that will be a thing and if the AI isn't run off a server, then it will take massive compute power at my desk. And we may find that my 27 inch Retina display is a poor option compared to computing devices in the Apple Vision Pro category (don't just think the 2024 version, think the 2034 version). But again, those will ultimately simply be two screens in front of my two eyes and my eyes will only see pixels. Will we need a ton of RAM to run those pixels? I don't know, but it is very possible that we won't.
Apple’s never done that before solely based on RAM, so there’s absolutely no reason to expect they will. “Apple’s endless greed” my foot, they’re a business, not a charity. They make a product that absolutely nobody is forced to buy. And there would be lawsuits if Apple decided to stop supporting only the 8GB RAM versions of their MacBooks, just saying…
Yes, a 8GB Macbook Pro for $1400 would be more palatable. I understand your objection to the OP. I just think that the real intention of such an absolute statement is that pretty much every $1600 laptop that most of us can think of would benefit greatly from 16GB of RAM and considering the extremely low cost of RAM there's very little reason not to include it at that price.
I've read and understand enough. It's different (slightly), but not much better, and more restrictive -- no upgrades for anything, even if you need it. I'd prefer discrete components with DMA capability...
Interesting that most Apple competitors aren't running into this problem. RAM and storage modules aren't terribly expensive, so it's not like Apple can't keep the price level (or better yet offer a 'discount' option to downgrade to 8 GB!) except it would cut into their profits. This isn't a matter of us complaining they're too expensive but rather WHY they are artificially bottlenecked or have such expensive upgrade options.
It depends on what you mean by that -- there is DMA after all, but yes, you're right, there has to be some copying going on. (framebuffer mainly)
Actually, these days, the cheapest option should have 16G, the cost to manufacture and use it is not enough more than 8G, and OS's are getting heavier and things like virtualization by non pros is being used more too. (for security). So yes, there should be a cheapest option, but at 16G for now, maybe 32G in another 10 years.
I think though that what a lot of people miss in that calculus is that they’re comparing a laptop with a much higher quality display, much better sound system, much longer battery runtime, etc., to a laptop that can’t match any of those things, or at most, perhaps a couple. It’s really not necessarily a very fair comparison. It would be like comparing a PC with a 4K display with 8GB of RAM against one with a 1080P display with 16GB of RAM, and complaining about the price difference.