Pretty sure they'll be back to complain about the price increase...
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
No one says that!
The debate is whether something which most PC's nowadays consider the norm should be called a premium to Apple. We can argue all day over what nowadays would be considered minimally acceptable, but I think we all can agree 4 GB is too little and 32 GB is above reason. What's to stop Apple from setting the base RAM to 4 GB and make 8 GB premium?
The number is fairly subjective but when it comes to a premium computer like Apple the norm should at least be on par with its competitors. I object to 8 GB largely because it's not very future proof, given how extreme OS and basic applications are becoming. If these were upgradable then I wouldn't be arguing so intensely on this subject.
Apple deliberately designed their computers in such a manner that only they may repair or upgrade them. You don't really own that computer you're using because anything you do to it outside of Apple will engage 'anti-repair' features to disable the machine and make it worthless. Apple rigged their hardware in such a manner that you must always pay a premium for virtually anything of theirs that you buy.
Size of the market that would be satisfied with the performance with 4 GB memory.
In my opinion, if someone (speaking in general) is going to leave Apple Macs over a $200 RAM upgrade, then that consumer probably was spending outside his or her budget to begin with.
For me, I am willing to pay the "Apple Tax" because there is so many more positive aspects (overall) that come with buying Apple like good customer service, device support and updates, return policy, OS, warranty, security and privacy, and build quality. If the Apple price rises higher than I want to pay and or one or more of the aspects listed falls below my customer satisfaction expectations, I will stop buying that particular Apple product or products.
I realize everyone here has different expectations and financial thresholds and that is fine. However, I don't make a point to project my financial preferences onto the public at large, and act as if I speak for all by making blanket declarations such as nobody should be using 8GB of RAM, it's criminal of Apple, its exploitation of Apple, and other hyperbole.
As as I said earlier, the usual suspects on here who complain about 8GB of RAM all the time are the same ones that weren't going to get the base model in the first place. They are just trying to dictate to Apple and other consumers what should be the base model.
Edied to add: I think it is time for some members here to trade in their Apple toys for other brands. If these complainers ranting with such empty words all the time believed what they said, they would leave. They won't leave (as a whole) because they aren't willing to walk the walk. They just complain all the time about Apple taking advantage of them.
Last edited:
Some of us (me at least) are not arguing about value, and say just make your own value decision and buy or do not buy. Stop whining.
My argument is that Apple should have a low RAM least cost choice and lots of higher RAM more cost choices; and Apple does that. Value is in the mind of each buyer.
Are you seriously claiming that TSMC charges Apple the same to bake 16 GB RAM on to an M chip next to the processors as they charge to bake 8 GB RAM on to an M chip? Sorry but I fail to believe you without some kind of documentation other than worldwide loose RAM costs.
Plus of course all this arguing will become moot, because at some point Apple will increase base RAM just like they have in the past.
You know what? We've all arrived at our own opinions before typing anything. Most everything presented... if you agree you 'like' it. You don't you ignore it and we're just frustrated at the other side.
Apple doesn't care. I would do well to 'ignore' this thread and go on with my life.
Apple doesn't care. I would do well to 'ignore' this thread and go on with my life.
Last edited:
Must be sizeable since Apple didn't drop the 8 GB models with the M2 and M3 lineups.
Why is this even a question? The whole 'it's called a Pro so it should have X' is a red herring. All kinds of things are marketed with the word Pro in todays world.
And for the record, if Apple sold more 16GB base Macs through the on-line channel they would stock them in the stores.
You can already get a 16 GB model. You're unhappy with the price, not with the choice that the base is 8 GB.
So we can’t even criticize something because if Apple did it, it was automatically a good choice?
No, we don’t know it’s sizeable. It could also be that almost everyone bites the bullet and a) tries to get by with 8 or b) upgrades to 16.
What logical reason do you have for assuming that it isn’t a popular configuration? If you had hard evidence that the 8GB configuration wasn’t popular enough to justify it’s existence, then you may have an actual argument, but you’re just assuming it isn’t a popular configuration based on your own biases…
If Apple did it, their market research would have determined that it is a good financial choice.
Not b). If almost everyone upgrades, it is not cost-effective for Apple to have 8 GB as an extra SKU.
Why do you keep referring to this process as baking in this argument. The processor and the RAM are still separate chips. They are simply soldered to the same "SoC" package. "Bake" is and will always be the wrong word to use in this instance.
And yes I truly would believe that Apple probably pays the exact same price to have all of the RAM options added to the "SoC" packages as it is a automated process and probably does not matter which "RAM" chip(s) are being added. The only difference in price would be the actual cost of the memory chip, which between a 8 and 16 is probably not that much.
And what possible reason would Apple have for not stocking the higher priced SKU if they sold more?
How is TSMC involved? It’s not their RAM, not their package.
And if TSMC were involved, soldering the RAM in the package, yes, of course they’d charge the same whether it’s 8 GiB, 16 GiB, a pony, or an audio chip? It’s just a dumb chip you solder on a package.
I suspect the M3 16 GB MBPs will sell in rather low volumes. For $200 more, you get a better chip, 2 GB more memory, higher memory bandwidth and an extra port. The difference could be even less if you're getting 512 GB/1 TB, since they're stocked SKUs, which means 3rd party retailers will frequently sell them at a discount.
OK, fair enough. Let's start over. Here I've made the comparison as clear as I can. Plus, for every single one of these, I've provided screenshots from the mfr's website confirming the prices in the table. I showed all of these in my previous posts to you, except for the last two, which are thus included below.
You keep claiming different figures, yet can you cite any evidence to support them? I.e., can you show any evidence to contradict what my table clearly shows, which is that Apple's RAM upgrade prices are multiples higher than those from other mfrs, and that they don't "even out" when going to the second upstep?
Here are they only screenshots that are missing:
HP:
LENOVO:
I participate in another form that includes current and former chip designers, and none of them have argued that Apple's UMA RAM should cost Apple significantly more. See also my post here:
Last edited:
"Unified Memory Architecture" means that their CPU and GPU share the same memory. Which has upsides (it's extremely fast to share data between CPU and GPU, since there's no transfer involved) and downsides (you have less overall memory, since the GPU doesn't have its own).
It doesn't really affect the memory chips. Those are LPDDR5 in this case. An 8 GiB chip can be had for below $50. Apple can probably get it for far below that. Apple seems to generally use SK Hynix chips.
They're not special custom Apple chips. I don't know where this idea comes from.
It doesn't really affect the memory chips. Those are LPDDR5 in this case. An 8 GiB chip can be had for below $50. Apple can probably get it for far below that. Apple seems to generally use SK Hynix chips.
They're not special custom Apple chips. I don't know where this idea comes from.
This is the Dell XPS 13 Plus, and Dell charges $250 to jump from 16GB to 32GB.
Attachments
As a business. Apple wouldn't offer it, if it wasn't being purchased and profitable.
It's less about pissing off the consumer than it is selling what people want to buy. I mean, why offer an 8GB model if no one is going to buy it? You can't fix it after you built it. It's' not efficient to do this.
No different than those that purchase an iPhone SE instead of a non-Pro model and or Pro model iPhone.
They offer the range, and as a consumer you can "pick" which one will work best for you. Either cost concusus or bang for the buck. Or just have to have the best of the best latest and greatest. Need it for work, or for convenience and light use.
Yeah, obviously a Pro model for $1799 is supposed to be only used for some emails and facebook.