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

[theluggage]

It's been pointed out previously that 64GB and 128GB are the same price in volume

No it hasn't. Chip makers need to eat and sleep indoors too and if 128GB chips sold for the same as 64GB chips (and what your strawman is actually saying is that 128GB chips cost the same as 8GB chips) they wouldn't bother selling both.

Which is ridiculous. Indeed. This is because the initial argument is false.

No, the reasoning is false because, after the first statement, every subsequent step along your "slippery slope" is nonsense. If "16GB is the same price as 8GB" that usually means that 16GB chips are selling in larger quantities as the smaller chips become obsolete. Beyond that, prices still go up with capacity.

Consumers perceive 16 GB to be of higher value than 8 GB,

Except Apple have been expecting consumers to perceive that since 2013 - eventually, that stops working.

 

[maxoakland]

I'm glad people are finally done drinking Apples "8GB is enough" kool aid because it's been ridiculous

 

[boak]

The best-selling models are probably 8 GB. So just a vocal minority being outraged.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

The actual moment Tim realised one day he would get to ship that junk

 

[ArkSingularity]

Perhaps you should google "most valuable company in world" and see who pops up.

Yes, Apple's value in the stock market is the most valuable company in the world. Does that mean that we, as consumers, shouldn't talk about consumer things for fear that it might hurt a shareholder's stock price?

(I am, by the way, an Apple shareholder. I have been since 2015.)

 

[bobcomer]

How is commuting time to work not working? Your job is costing you 433 hours a year of your life.

That's just the way I think of it. I might get angry if I didn't.

What you've told me is those 2 seconds bother you, and therefore, of course!, you're going to upgrade RAM. Those costs to upgrade RAM have direct benefit, and amortized over time, cost you next to nothing. So, why are you here arguing that $200 is TOO MUCH?

Because I know the price it takes with other laptops and Apple is out of line, and fwiw, where I work we're all Windows and servers, no Apple stuff except iPhones) and I'm the guy that purchases those computers. So I'm acutely aware of costing them. Not to mention I really do think 16G should be the minimum for any computer for working. It just works better that way. OS's are getting heavier because they're doing more, apps are heavier, AV is necessary -- it all works better when there's room and the real cost of RAM is not bad in 16G amounts. Now 128G like my iMac, that's cost prohibitive for anyone that doesn't absolutely need it. My Windows PC desktop has 64G, and my Mac Mini has 32G -- I need RAM, but all the PC's I buy for work these days have 16G.

And I do pay that $200 (actually more as 16G isn't enough for me), but I gripe about it to myself every time. My only other choice is just to forget about Mac's and I haven't been ready for that -- yet.

 

[ksj1]

This could have allowed them to lead the market by offering the single greatest value for performance computers in the world

I think the part you may be missing is that they already are the single greatest value for performance computers in the world.

My 84yo Mom has an 8GB M1 mbp. She doesn't need anything more. She isn't going to wake up and decide to render videos of the grandkids in Blender.

My 8yo grand Niece has an 8GB M2 mbp. She is learning to type and using it for school and simple games. She has no need for more. She shares it with her Mom, who also isn't going to decide she is a computer nerd suddenly. She uses it for lists and to look things up on the internet. It gets turned off when not in use.

Now, everyone will squeal that they should have gotten an MBA, but if this argument is about 8 vs 16, it is irrelevant. My nieces husband is well off and can afford them.

They both smoke any Intel Macbook with 16GB. Along with being completely silent. Oh, and operate at the same speed on the couch as they do plugged in.

Edit - I got my Mom the MBP. She needs the better screen, she doesn't need more memory (in the computer).

 

[boak]

And I do pay that $200 (actually more as 16G isn't enough for me), but I gripe about it to myself every time. My only other choice is just to forget about Mac's and I haven't been ready for that -- yet.

And Apple knows that. This is, in fact, the sweet spot for the pricing.

 

[theorist9]

Sure, Dell charges $100 for their first RAM upgrade from 8GB RAM to 16GB RAM (I already stated this before, so hardly “ignoring it”), but the next steps up, they start charging more for these upgrades.

Sorry, but you're not making sense here. You were complaining I wasn't using the right numbers for the conversation, so I focused specifically on 8 to 16 GB. And in response, in your last post you kept quoting $150 and $250 for Dell:

Why were you quoting figures of $150 and $250 for Dell if you knew the upgrade price for that step was $100??? It feels like you're just trolling me here, rather than trying to have an honest conversation about the facts.

Apple charges a consistent $200 between RAM upgrades, while Dell charges increasingly higher numbers. So that’s how it basically evens out in the wash.

Nope, as I showed, even if you go to higher upgrades, Apple still comes out to be far more expensive on a per GB basis. Apple's 2nd step with the M3 is only $200 because it only goes from 16 GB-> 24 GB. Dell doesn't have anything that small, so the only way to do an honest comparison it to calculate dollars/GB. Facts matter.

Besides, Dell must just be being evil by charging $100 for RAM that only costs them $20, right? 🙄. .

Hunh?? We're not discussing good and evil, we're just discussing the facts about memory upgrade costs. Stop adding irrelevant distractions. That's just more game-playing.

I’ve heard that from several trusted, reputable sources, yet everyone keeps assuming that it’s exactly the same, when we just don’t know. I’m perfectly fine with Apple charging $200 for a RAM upgrade, especially when the high-end PC competition (which isn’t near as good on display, battery runtime, etc.) are charging close to that themselves.

Baloney. Who are these mysterious trusted sources that you've suspiciously not quoted? I see no reason that UMA should cost Apple double or more than conventional memory. And I never crticitized what Apple charges. I critiize those who refuse to be honest about what Apple is charging.

 

[Corefile]

Let me explain it in a simpler manner. The argument is based on when components cost the same, Apple should provide the better one for free. Extending this argument:

"It's been pointed out previously that 8GB and 16GB are the same price in volume so there is zero justifiable reason to not go with the higher spec'd part." Apple changes base model to 16GB.

"It's been pointed out previously that 16GB and 32GB are the same price in volume so there is zero justifiable reason to not go with the higher spec'd part. Apple changes base model to 32GB.

"It's been pointed out previously that 32GB and 64GB are the same price in volume so there is zero justifiable reason to not go with the higher spec'd part. Apple changes base model to 64GB.

"It's been pointed out previously that 64GB and 128GB are the same price in volume so there is zero justifiable reason to not go with the higher spec'd part. Apple changes base model to 128GB.

Which is ridiculous. Indeed. This is because the initial argument is false. Apple does not have to essentially give you a free upgrade. The price of a product is not directly dictated by the cost of components. It's based on the value that consumers perceive it to be. Consumers perceive 16 GB to be of higher value than 8 GB, Apple therefore charges more.

You are slavering nonsense. 8GB and 16GB are the same cost in volume and in fact it is often more expensive to source the lesser part due to scarcity. This is all about Apple ripping the consumer off to force them to pay a premium for something which should be the base config. You are being disingenuous by your attempt at "[e]xtending this argument".

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Which browser?

Yeah, most likely is (I know Gmail is pretty bad). Still not really her fault though, more of a combination of the website, lack of RAM, and Safari not handling memory leaked tabs very well.

I am a proponent of getting even more than 16 GB for most of us buying new Macs. That said, in a case like that also open Activity Monitor and carefully peruse how CPU, etc. are being used. My 80 y-o friend had me help her with her 2019 iMac, and it was way slow after reboot even before opening a single app. I suspected she had installed malware but it turned out Apple installed the malware. A Siri bug under Mojave was randomly using 80-99% of CPU; online search showed the easy solution was to turn off Siri because she does not use it on her Mac. I turned Siri off and the Mac was immediately normal.

 

[theluggage]

Saying inflation doesn’t affect computer pricing is a bad argument.

Except, inflation doesn’t affect computer pricing - or at least hasn't until the last year or two when inflation spiked - but Apple's RAM/SSD specs and upgrade prices have been problematic since before then, while everything else in the PC hardware market has got better without significant price increases.

Specs for the processor in that MBA

Well, yes, exactly: Almost every aspect of the MacBook Pro you get for ~$1600 price point has improved drastically since 2013, except the RAM and SSD. Which is why people today are specifically complaining about the RAM and SSD specs rather than the screen resolution, number of CPU/GPU cores, speed of the Thunderbolt ports etc...

 

[boak]

This is all about Apple ripping the consumer off to force them to pay a premium for something which should be the base config.

Wow didn't know premiums should be free

 

[boak]

Oh and I wrote a post here directly to the creator of the video and still no reply. He knows he's spreading misinformation and is just evading scrutiny.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Actual usability.

For "Actual usability" I have two friends with 8 GB RAM iMacs who have never been RAM limited, because they just do one simple thing at a time, quit and go do something else. Me, I paid for 96 GB RAM in M2 MBP, but those two should NOT be forced to pay for 16 GB RAM; unused RAM has no value add.

And K-12 edu is another important cohort of buyers who should NOT be forced to pay for 16 GB RAM, because sysops can force the workflows to just do one or two simple things at a time.

 

[Kal Madda]

Sorry, but you're not making sense here. You were complaining I wasn't using the right numbers for the conversation, so I focused specifically on 8 to 16 GB. And in response, in your last post you kept quoting $150 and $250 for Dell:
View attachment 2311293 Why were you quoting figures of $150 and $250 for Dell if you knew the upgrade price for that step was $100??? It feels like you're just trolling me here, rather than trying to have an honest conversation about the facts.


Nope, as I showed, even if you go to higher upgrades, Apple still comes out to be far more expensive on a per GB basis. Apple's 2nd step with the M3 is only $200 because it only goes from 16 GB-> 24 GB. Dell doesn't have anything that small, so the only way to do an honest comparison it to calculate dollars/GB. Facts matter.


Hunh?? We're not discussing good and evil, we're just discussing the facts about memory upgrade costs. Stop adding irrelevant distractions. That's just more game-playing.


Baloney. Who are these mysterious trusted sources that you've suspiciously not quoted? I see no reason that UMA should cost Apple double or more than conventional memory. And I never crticitized what Apple charges. I critiize those who refuse to be honest about what Apple is charging.

I pointed out that some of Dell’s RAM upgrades go above $200, to $250 and if I’m remembering correctly even higher than that. Apple charges a consistent $200 for each rung up the RAM pricing ladder. Nothing dishonest in pointing that out. Maybe you were confused by the way I phrased things, but I’m not trying to be dishonest here, I even led with the “Dell charges $100 for 8GB to 16 GB, Apple charges $200 for 8GB to 16GB number.

The reason I said evil is because people in here are complaining about how greedy and evil Apple is for charging extra for RAM. Not what you said.

I’m pretty sure there’s been multiple articles from 9to5 Mac. I follow 9to5 Mac, Apple Insider, MacRumors, etc. and I’ve seen articles from those sources saying Unified Memory costs more to produce. I can look for articles, but again, nothing dishonest or disingenuous about saying I’ve seen sources that say that, because I have.

 

[boak]

Why does Apple need to charge the same as their competitors anyway? Apple has always been able to command a premium in their pricing.

 

[boak]

At the end of the day, the 8 GB whiners can whine all they want. Apple will only move to 16 GB (and price accordingly) when the 8 GB market shrinks sufficiently.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

So with the RAM being shared with the GPU you have less than 8GB, it’s only going to take a few programs open and that RAM is full therefore you are going to have a really crappy experience.

Plus think about it, even a cheap PS5, Series X, hell even my Steam Deck comes with 16GB RAM. 8GB is not usable no ifs or buts.

You are correct that most buyers should pay for more than 8 GB RAM. So what? Just buy the extra needed RAM. There remain LOTS of buyers (not surfing MR...) for whom 16 GB is overspending because they only run one app at a time.

 

[enb141]

Then go buy the other computer that is cheaper to upgrade. Just because other brands are cheaper doesn't mean Apple has to follow suit to appease some MR members.

That's what I've been doing since 1997.

 

[enb141]

So buy the other one. Simple. Or recognize that for some reason the Apple one appeals to you for reasons beyond RAM pricing.

That's what I've been doing since 1997.

 

[enb141]

Try going from 36GB to 128GB on the M3 Max. You can buy a 64GB RAM Intel laptop for that $1300 odd.

Or for the price of a mac pro you can get an Intel i9 with nvidia 4090 and a laptop.

 

[ksj1]

Or for the price of a mac pro you can get an Intel i9 with nvidia 4090 and a laptop.

And as a bonus you won't need to buy a space heater or a white noise generator!

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Oh, for sure. Actually, I did some research on memory pressure, and while it's still rather poorly documented how it's actually calculated internally (couldn't find a good technical description of the formula used), I did discover that the color of the memory pressure graph is apparently determined independently of its percentage.

The memory pressure percentage itself appears to have to do with how much "free memory" the system has as a percentage of its total (Mac OS is considering more than just what Activity monitor shows here, it has some internal metrics for some of this stuff). The color of the graph, on the other hand, appears to have to do (at least partially) with how often the system is having to page in and out, which is a much better metric of its actual performance impact.

Green memory pressure means relatively minimal performance impact (regardless of the pressure percentage). Yellow means higher paging activity but no thrashing (by the technical description of thrashing that would cause severe performance impacts), and red pretty much means the system is doing the functional equivalent of chocking on its own breath.

It's pretty much exactly what most people expected, but it's interesting that it calculates the two metrics separately. I rarely ran across red memory pressure on my 8GB system unless I was opening up the iOS simulator with all of my development IDEs open at the same time (that particular workload was especially hard on my 8GB system), but most other workloads ran it pretty much consistently into the yellow, but never had severe slowdowns.

Good analysis, thanks for that. My premise - others' MMV - is that when other workloads ran it pretty much consistently into the yellow the box is being RAM-limited, and optimum box setup would optimize by avoiding being RAM-limited; i.e. by having more RAM on board.

 

[avro707]

So I suppose that 8GB on a Mac are not equal to 16GB on a PC.

Apple actually went and claimed that. I felt so ashamed as an Apple Silicon user.

Exactly what I’d expect Apple to say, and the Apple fan base tends to agree with it quite often.

8GB in a “Pro” machine is taking the you know what…

16gb should be absolute minimum for today.

Same with 1TB for storage.