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

[enb141]

But do you like Macs? Everything you’ve said so far implies to me that you vehemently dislike them…

It’s okay if you don’t like them btw, nobody’s saying you don’t have the right to speak your mind, I’m just genuinely curious about if you’ve ever used a Mac, and if you like Macs, or are a Windows fan.

I had a Hackintosh back in the day when they announced that were moving from Power PC to Intel, was cool, back then wasn't so harsh to keep the hackintosh going on, but now that they moved from Intel to Apple Silicon, hackintosh is dead so the only way to get a mac is buying one.

I never said that I hate macs, but I don't like to pay $200 for upgrading from 8 GB RAM to 16GB, or 256GB to 512GB.

 

[Kal Madda]

I had a Hackintosh back in the day when they announced that were moving from Power PC to Intel, was cool, back then wasn't so harsh to keep the hackintosh going on, but now that they moved from Intel to Apple Silicon, hackintosh is dead so the only way to get a mac is buying one.

I never said that I hate macs, but I don't like to pay $200 for upgrading from 8 GB RAM to 16GB, or 256GB to 512GB.

I can tell you from personal experience that the M-Series Macs perform a lot differently than the Intel Macs, especially a Hackintosh which isn’t as optimized with hardware to software. As someone who has used a 16GB Intel Mac, other 16GB Intel systems, and an 8GB M1 Mac. The 8GB M1 Mac performs better than the 16GB Mac and at least on par with the other 16GB Intel systems I’ve used.

I think the RAM upgrade pricing is fine. Especially considering that many of Apple’s competitors are charging about the same or even nearly double for the same upgrades.

 

[enb141]

I can tell you from personal experience that the M-Series Macs perform a lot differently than the Intel Macs, especially a Hackintosh which isn’t as optimized with hardware to software. As someone who has used a 16GB Intel Mac, other 16GB Intel systems, and an 8GB M1 Mac. The 8GB M1 Mac performs better than the 16GB Mac and at least on par with the other 16GB Intel systems I’ve used.

I think the RAM upgrade pricing is fine. Especially considering that many of Apple’s competitors are charging about the same or even nearly double for the same upgrades.

Back then my hackintosh had Nvidia card support and the hardware was very similar to the Mac Development kit, so the experience was good, plus my custom hardware was always better than whatever macs offers you, back in the days of my hackintosh I had a 10000 RPM hard drive, no macs had it, plus a good nvidia card, that was a dream computer at a very affordable price, unfortunately over the years hackintoshes became hard to maintain and no nvidia support.

 

[Kal Madda]

Back then my hackintosh had Nvidia card support and the hardware was very similar to the Mac Development kit, so the experience was good, plus my custom hardware was always better than whatever macs offers you, back in the days of my hackintosh I had a 10000 RPM hard drive, no macs had it, plus a good nvidia card, that was a dream computer at a very affordable price, unfortunately over the years hackintoshes became hard to maintain and no nvidia support.

And the M-Series Macs have gained a lot better performance than the Intel Macs offered. They’re well worth the price, especially with the high performance, high quality display, high quality sound system, unrivaled battery runtime, etc. Plus, they come with macOS. 👍🏻

 

[enb141]

And the M-Series Macs have gained a lot better performance than the Intel Macs offered. They’re well worth the price, especially with the high performance, high quality display, high quality sound system, unrivaled battery runtime, etc. Plus, they come with macOS. 👍🏻

I have to disagree with you, sound cards of macs are always way way behind PCs, any gaming PC will smokes pretty easily the sound system of any mac.

The problem with macs now days is that if you want the equivalent of a power mac, a computer with upgradability without costing an arm and two legs, like the Power Mac G5, back then you could get a "cheap" one, but now if you want a mac with upgradability, those days are pretty much gone.

Macs are slowly killing the upgradability options and forcing you to get a very low (RAM/SSD) specs computer.

 

[Kal Madda]

I have to disagree with you, sound cards of macs are always way way behind PCs, any gaming PC will smokes pretty easily the sound system of any mac.

The problem with macs now days is that if you want the equivalent of a power mac, a computer with upgradability without costing an arm and two legs, like the Power Mac G5, back then you could get a "cheap" one, but now if you want a mac with upgradability, those days are pretty much gone.

Macs are slowly killing the upgradability options and forcing you to get a very low (RAM/SSD) specs computer.

Most people don’t want or need an upgradable computer. And I have to disagree with you, no Windows computer I’ve heard has ever sounded as good as a MacBook Pro.

User upgradability isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. Most people just buy the spec they want. And we also benefit from much faster and more power efficient hardware than the slower and more energy hungry “upgradable” hardware…

 

[Kal Madda]

It double posted for whatever reason.

 

[enb141]

Most people don’t want or need an upgradable computer. And I have to disagree with you, no Windows computer I’ve heard has ever sounded as good as a MacBook Pro.

Then you haven't tried a gaming PC or a discreet sound card.

User upgradability isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. Most people just buy the spec they want. And we also benefit from much faster and more power efficient hardware than the slower and more energy hungry “upgradable” hardware…

Benefit from a locked down hardware, if that were the case, nobody would be buying and building custom PCs, which is one huge business nowdays.

 

[Kal Madda]

Then you haven't tried a gaming PC or a discreet sound card.


Benefit from a locked down hardware, if that were the case, nobody would be buying and building custom PCs, which is one huge business nowdays.

I have tried gaming PCs at stores and such, the sound quality wasn’t as good in my opinion, and they were clunky comparatively.

Notice though, those are usually big desktop cabinets, not laptops most of the time. And that’s for a very specific thing gaming. Many people have a computer they don’t have to worry about any of that fiddling with (a Mac) and a gaming PC cabinet for gaming if they’re really heavy into gaming. And majority of MacBook users don’t want to crack open their MacBook to swap fragile parts. So they get the benefit of newer and faster RAM and storage standards instead. Rather than being stuck with fossilized DDR RAM cards and standards…

 

[enb141]

I have tried gaming PCs at stores and such, the sound quality wasn’t as good in my opinion, and they were clunky comparatively.

Notice though, those are usually big desktop cabinets, not laptops most of the time. And that’s for a very specific thing gaming. Many people have a computer they don’t have to worry about any of that fiddling with (a Mac) and a gaming PC cabinet for gaming if they’re really heavy into gaming. And majority of MacBook users don’t want to crack open their MacBook to swap fragile parts. So they get the benefit of newer and faster RAM and storage standards instead. Rather than being stuck with fossilized DDR RAM cards and standards…

That's not necessarily true, other wise mac pro wouldn't exist, and still does.

Back in the day of Power Mac you could get a decent upgradable computer, but now you are pretty much getting a cellphone within a box.

 

[Kal Madda]

That's not necessarily true, other wise mac pro wouldn't exist, and still does.

Back in the day of Power Mac you could get a decent upgradable computer, but now you are pretty much getting a cellphone within a box.

And you’re also getting the much higher performance and battery runtime that comes with that. There’s nothing wrong with a “cellphone within a box” as you call it. It does a lot more than a cellphone, and the battery runtime is unrivaled. “Upgradable” components would use more energy, and wouldn’t offer the same high level of performance. And since most people don’t care about swapping components in their computers (even with “upgradable” gaming PCs lots of people just buy the specs they want upfront), we get to benefit from the higher performance and unrivaled battery runtime.

 

[henkie]

And you’re also getting the much higher performance and battery runtime that comes with that. There’s nothing wrong with a “cellphone within a box” as you call it. It does a lot more than a cellphone, and the battery runtime is unrivaled. “Upgradable” components would use more energy, and wouldn’t offer the same high level of performance. And since most people don’t care about swapping components in their computers (even with “upgradable” gaming PCs lots of people just buy the specs they want upfront), we get to benefit from the higher performance and unrivaled battery runtime.

Sigh…you assume upgradeability = lower performance. But is that really the case? I mean, gaming PCs are upgradeable by design and smoke an iMac in terms of performance (and performance/dollar). Apparently, Apple could remove a whole ventilator from the M3 MBP, that leaves a lot space for upgrade ability. It is just a deliberate choice.
I upgraded my MacBook Pro 2011 a while back (added ram and ssd) and did the same for 3 other people. Took me 20 minutes each (time machine backup took longer) and for a fraction of the price of a new laptop. Point is: hard disk space is often bottleneck (“want to make a real hobby out of my photography, let’s shoot raw” (and iCloud is not a solution: lacks versioning!) and ram potentially as well, especially when multitasking. The M series processors or screen being a bottleneck: probably not so quick. I mean, you can even upgrade a ps5 with a bigger ssd yourself.

 

[chucker23n1]

Sigh…you assume upgradeability = lower performance. But is that really the case?

It's not.

Where they kind of have a point is that tight integration does add efficiencies / lower latencies: shorter cables, less bridging required, etc. Apple's memory bandwidths, for example, aren't currently feasible with DDR4 sticks.

OTOH, that also leads to more localized heat, which can only go so far. A gaming PC simply has more space to spread it out, which does offer performance potential as well, at the loss of power efficiency.

If Apple wanted to, they could design a CPU for the Mac Pro that takes up much more room, draws much more power, and has lower memory bandwidth, and overall runs faster in some tasks, simply by virtue of clocking it high and giving it much more RAM.

 

[Kal Madda]

Sigh…you assume upgradeability = lower performance. But is that really the case? I mean, gaming PCs are upgradeable by design and smoke an iMac in terms of performance (and performance/dollar). Apparently, Apple could remove a whole ventilator from the M3 MBP, that leaves a lot space for upgrade ability. It is just a deliberate choice.
I upgraded my MacBook Pro 2011 a while back (added ram and ssd) and did the same for 3 other people. Took me 20 minutes each (time machine backup took longer) and for a fraction of the price of a new laptop. Point is: hard disk space is often bottleneck (“want to make a real hobby out of my photography, let’s shoot raw” (and iCloud is not a solution: lacks versioning!) and ram potentially as well, especially when multitasking. The M series processors or screen being a bottleneck: probably not so quick. I mean, you can even upgrade a ps5 with a bigger ssd yourself.

In this case, it does. You can’t get the same bandwidth of RAM in card form. The only way to get that high bandwidth RAM is soldered. RAM cards are like at least one step behind in speed, and on top of that, use bus connections which add yet more latency to the system. And they are less energy efficient as well. And Unified Memory benefits from the increased speed of the soldered RAM.

Could you make a Mac Pro with a different chip design? You could, but it would be really odd. “M3 in this platform uses super fast Unified Memory, but M3 in this platform uses these older and slower RAM cards”. That would just be odd and inconsistent. Besides, you’d miss out on the increased speed of the soldered RAM and storage, just to appease the few who would want to change fragile internal components in their computer. It wouldn’t make much sense.

And the M-Series processor will be a bottleneck at some point. Mac’s get approximately 7-8 years of OS support life, so when that time period ends, you’ll be on an older version of macOS. And that won’t be due to your RAM or SSD, it will be your CPU that will be the true bottleneck.

 

[chucker23n1]

In this case, it does. You can’t get the same bandwidth of RAM in card form.

What matters is overall performance. High bandwidth is a factor towards achieving that goal; it's not per se the goal.

Could you make a Mac Pro with a different chip design? You could, but it would be really odd. “M3 in this platform uses super fast Unified Memory, but M3 in this platform uses these older and slower RAM cards”. That would just be odd and inconsistent.

The reason Apple doesn't do that isn't that it'd be "odd and inconsistent", but that unit sales would be too slow to justify the R&D.

Besides, you’d miss out on the increased speed of the soldered RAM and storage,

The storage doesn't have increased speed, though. Like, you can get a 7 GB/s NVMe SSD with 2 TB for $200. It'll have basically the same chips as Apple uses, just with the controller on the stick instead of in the SoC.

And once PCIe 5 becomes more widespread, that gets doubled, for a whopping 14 GB/s.

While Apple AFAIK doesn't use PCIe for its SSDs, so it theoretically has slightly less overhead, I haven't seen evidence that it results in much practical difference.

just to appease the few who would want to change fragile internal components in their computer. It wouldn’t make much sense.

But… "changing fragile internal components" is the whole point of the Mac Pro. Apple literally advertises it as the Mac with internal expansion.

And the M-Series processor will be a bottleneck at some point. Mac’s get approximately 7-8 years of OS support life, so when that time period ends, you’ll be on an older version of macOS. And that won’t be due to your RAM or SSD, it will be your CPU that will be the true bottleneck.

On an 8 GiB RAM Mac, the RAM is most likely to be the bottleneck first.

 

[Agincourt]

Even after years of debate there seem to still be two distinct arguments pertaining to the 8 GB justification: it lowers the base price vs. Apple price gouging.

The cost of manufacture isn't significantly affected by the cost of RAM or storage. Build the computer to its entirety but leave out the RAM & SSD chips and how much does that really save in terms of manufacturing costs? It's absolutely not anywhere near $400 USD. Based on the cost of doubling the base stats from 8 to 16 RAM & 256 to 512 GB storage, then logically you must think dropping the specs will bring down the manufacturing costs... only it doesn't. Under this assumption they could sell the Mini at only $200 USD, minus the cost of 8 GB RAM and 256 GB storage.

We do absolutely have cheaper models for sure, but it's not because of the SSD and RAM which make them significantly cheaper. These components are too cheap to significantly bring down manufacturing costs, except when you're pushing for the more extreme figures like 64 GB+

Someone earlier mentioned that Apple constantly is pushing for less user accessibility for the specific purpose of price gouging. Knowing that users such as myself will pay whatever is needed rather than switch over to Windows, they slap premiums on virtually everything. Put up or shut up.

Well I'm not suggesting they CAN'T do this. But just because they have the right to do it doesn't mean we have to be happy with their price gouging. I'm just baffled over why fellow Apple enthusiasts feel the need to defend a trillion dollar company over its customers.

 

[Kal Madda]

What matters is overall performance. High bandwidth is a factor towards achieving that goal; it's not per se the goal.

The reason Apple doesn't do that isn't that it'd be "odd and inconsistent", but that unit sales would be too slow to justify the R&D.

The storage doesn't have increased speed, though. Like, you can get a 7 GB/s NVMe SSD with 2 TB for $200. It'll have basically the same chips as Apple uses, just with the controller on the stick instead of in the SoC.

And once PCIe 5 becomes more widespread, that gets doubled, for a whopping 14 GB/s.

While Apple AFAIK doesn't use PCIe for its SSDs, so it theoretically has slightly less overhead, I haven't seen evidence that it results in much practical difference.

But… "changing fragile internal components" is the whole point of the Mac Pro. Apple literally advertises it as the Mac with internal expansion.

On an 8 GiB RAM Mac, the RAM is most likely to be the bottleneck first.

The goal is higher energy efficiency (longer battery runtime) and high performance. The soldered RAM and storage are more energy efficient and offer that high performance.

It would be odd and inconsistent. And it would also probably not justify all of the R&D since very few people would ever use the “upgradability”. Better to stick with more power efficient and high performance components that benefit more people.

The storage has less latency due to the lack of a bus connection. And it also is more power efficient.

And no, with the Mac Pro, you open a casing and have free access to PCIE trays for swapping PCIE expansions. You’re not swapping the CPU or the RAM/storage, though you could probably swap out the motherboard if you wished to. PCIE trays are simpler to swap, and not nearly as fragile as delicate ribbon connectors that need unplugged in order to remove a drive, etc. Not even a close analogy, swapping PCIE accessories in a desktop is nothing like trying to swap RAM and SSD in a laptop. And RAM cards and removable SSDs would take up a lot more room, impacting battery runtime and other hardware potentially like the amazing sound system.

It depends on the person and their use case. Unless people who are satisfied with base spec today suddenly have to make some big change to their computer needs or workflow, then I highly doubt that’s the case. You certainly don’t have any evidence for your claim, it’s just your opinion. What isn’t opinion is that both the 16GB and 8GB models will be dropped from new feature updates at the same time.

 

[Kal Madda]

Even after years of debate there seem to still be two distinct arguments pertaining to the 8 GB justification: it lowers the base price vs. Apple price gouging.

The cost of manufacture isn't significantly affected by the cost of RAM or storage. Build the computer to its entirety but leave out the RAM & SSD chips and how much does that really save in terms of manufacturing costs? It's absolutely not anywhere near $400 USD. Based on the cost of doubling the base stats from 8 to 16 RAM & 256 to 512 GB storage, then logically you must think dropping the specs will bring down the manufacturing costs... only it doesn't. Under this assumption they could sell the Mini at only $200 USD, minus the cost of 8 GB RAM and 256 GB storage.

We do absolutely have cheaper models for sure, but it's not because of the SSD and RAM which make them significantly cheaper. These components are too cheap to significantly bring down manufacturing costs, except when you're pushing for the more extreme figures like 64 GB+

Someone earlier mentioned that Apple constantly is pushing for less user accessibility for the specific purpose of price gouging. Knowing that users such as myself will pay whatever is needed rather than switch over to Windows, they slap premiums on virtually everything. Put up or shut up.

Well I'm not suggesting they CAN'T do this. But just because they have the right to do it doesn't mean we have to be happy with their price gouging. I'm just baffled over why fellow Apple enthusiasts feel the need to defend a trillion dollar company over its customers.

It does lower the base price. The base price for the 14” MacBook Pro was $2000 in 2021 and 2022, but now it’s $1600, a significant savings. Does it lower the cost of production, probably. How much, none of us know, and it doesn’t really matter. The fact is that they were more expensive, and now there’s an option with a common base spec RAM configuration that is a lot cheaper for those of us who don’t need excess amounts of RAM.

We don’t know how much Apple is actually making in profit from the 8GB base spec MacBook Pro. They could be making rather thin margins based on some info. So it’s very possible that the upgrade prices help to keep the lower price of the base spec sustainable.

Also, you’re making more assumptions. You don’t know what Apple’s production costs look like. You can guess, but you don’t know because you don’t have real data from Apple.

And another accusation without evidence. How do you know it’s only for “the sole purpose of price gouging” and not because of the benefits that soldered components provide to more customers? Soldered components offer the benefits of higher performance and higher power efficiency (aka longer battery runtime). “Upgradable” components take up more valuable space in the chassis eliminating room for battery, sound system components, etc. and are slower with greater latency, and are less energy efficient. The unrivaled battery runtime which is a major selling point among many customers would likely be lost in favor of “upgradability” that most people would never use…

And disagreeing with you and your claims doesn’t equal defending Apple over the customer… I think the system Apple offers today is much more beneficial to the customer. It gives them things they actually care about like a slim chassis, unrivaled battery runtime, a high quality sound system, etc. rather than big, antiquated swappable components which are slower and less energy efficient. Base spec models sell very well and customer satisfaction is very high, so I think the evidence points towards the conclusion that base spec customers value those things more.

 

[AJB1971]

Even after years of debate there seem to still be two distinct arguments pertaining to the 8 GB justification: it lowers the base price vs. Apple price gouging.

The cost of manufacture isn't significantly affected by the cost of RAM or storage. Build the computer to its entirety but leave out the RAM & SSD chips and how much does that really save in terms of manufacturing costs? It's absolutely not anywhere near $400 USD. Based on the cost of doubling the base stats from 8 to 16 RAM & 256 to 512 GB storage, then logically you must think dropping the specs will bring down the manufacturing costs... only it doesn't. Under this assumption they could sell the Mini at only $200 USD, minus the cost of 8 GB RAM and 256 GB storage.

We do absolutely have cheaper models for sure, but it's not because of the SSD and RAM which make them significantly cheaper. These components are too cheap to significantly bring down manufacturing costs, except when you're pushing for the more extreme figures like 64 GB+

Someone earlier mentioned that Apple constantly is pushing for less user accessibility for the specific purpose of price gouging. Knowing that users such as myself will pay whatever is needed rather than switch over to Windows, they slap premiums on virtually everything. Put up or shut up.

Well I'm not suggesting they CAN'T do this. But just because they have the right to do it doesn't mean we have to be happy with their price gouging. I'm just baffled over why fellow Apple enthusiasts feel the need to defend a trillion dollar company over its customers.

It’s good to see a consensus forming. A similar thread kept getting derailed, and I decided to stop posting in it.

I think it’s inevitable that we will see an increase in RAM when the M4 chips launch. Apple can’t deny evolution forever!

We’ve seen an increase in the base RAM of the iPhone Pros, and there are rumours that the next iPhones will see a similar increase. The full versions of the MacBook Pros also received a bump, and the Vision Pro coming with 16GB is a positive move.

I’ve said it before: I would rather buy the first generation with base RAM of 12 or 16GB than the last version with 8GB.

 

[chucker23n1]

It does lower the base price. The base price for the 14” MacBook Pro was $2000 in 2021 and 2022, but now it’s $1600,

The base price for the MacBook Pro was $1300 in 2022; now it's $1600.

 

[chucker23n1]

I love how this mythical "maybe Apple's production costs are really unusual for some reason" argument keeps coming up.

 

[Agincourt]

Also it wasn't a reduction in the RAM which resulted in a $400 decrease, it was also an inferior processor and the removal of a fan assembly. I also think this was done largely because few would upgrade to the 'real' pro model at $2000 USD if the base model had the same RAM and Storage specs at $1600 USD.

Most 'pro' reviewers on YouTube largely criticize the computer for being too expensive for what it is, which is still significantly more expensive than the model it replaced. When the $200 is spent to upgrade the RAM, you've got a significantly nerfed MBP that's only $200 less than the genuine article at that point... so might as well just go with the $2000 version! Better processor, graphics, and that second fan assembly for better cooling and quieter operations.

That's Apple's price strategy and I can admire their practices while still feeling upset with the fact they've bottlenecked one or two major elements which are comparatively cheap for them to buy, but expensive for us to upgrade. If the base MBP were $1600 and that one started at 16 GB RAM... I would give it serious consideration.

 

[Kal Madda]

The base price for the MacBook Pro was $1300 in 2022; now it's $1600.

And that MacBook Pro didn’t have any of the more expensive hardware the 14” MacBook Pro offers. The MacBook Air now beats it in basically everything, even port selection, offering MagSafe on top of the two thunderbolt ports and one audio jack that that 13” MacBook Pro had. We’re talking about the 14” MacBook Pro, not a 13” model that was discontinued because the M2 MacBook Air is basically better…

 

[Kal Madda]

Also it wasn't a reduction in the RAM which resulted in a $400 decrease, it was also an inferior processor and the removal of a fan assembly. I also think this was done largely because few would upgrade to the 'real' pro model at $2000 USD if the base model had the same RAM and Storage specs at $1600 USD.

Most 'pro' reviewers on YouTube largely criticize the computer for being too expensive for what it is, which is still significantly more expensive than the model it replaced. When the $200 is spent to upgrade the RAM, you've got a significantly nerfed MBP that's only $200 less than the genuine article at that point... so might as well just go with the $2000 version! Better processor, graphics, and that second fan assembly for better cooling and quieter operations.

That's Apple's price strategy and I can admire their practices while still feeling upset with the fact they've bottlenecked one or two major elements which are comparatively cheap for them to buy, but expensive for us to upgrade. If the base MBP were $1600 and that one started at 16 GB RAM... I would give it serious consideration.

Lots of assumptions. A. The M3 chip doesn’t need as much active cooling since it’s designed for passively cooled devices as well, throwing additional fans at it doesn’t necessarily make any sense. B. The $1600 base spec model is just as “real” of a Pro model as the $2000 one. They’re both very much real, and offer advantages for different kinds of professional workflow…

Most YouTubers are turning this into an artificial clickbait scandal to drive up views and clicks. They weren’t complaining when the base spec was $2000, but now that there’s a cheaper option that appeals to pros with different workflows than the YouTubers niche workflows, they’re all upset and outraged…

You keep making these assumptions about things like “this is Apple’s strategy”, “Apple’s motives are x”, etc. but they’re not backed up by any hard evidence. They’re simply your opinion and nothing more, and there are other equally or more plausible ideas that are completely counter to your claims and accusations…

 

[Agincourt]

In economics this is called a 'value added' process, meaning that what additional costs incurred to the manufacturer result in higher product value paid by the customer. It's like adding a slice of cheese to a hamburger for $.25 for a slice costing a nickel. We're all familiar with this. It's been proven multiple times that the cost of two 8 GB RAM chips is around $20 USD if we're being generous and rounding up. If Apple somehow screwed up their manufacturing to the point the RAM and SSD now costs them ~10x more to install and that cuts into their bottom line... I'm sure we can reasonably rule that out.

However Apple is not a discount computer brand... it's the gold standard nowadays. Therefore if you are paying so much for a top tier computer, the base specs should AT LEAST be on par with its competitors. I'm not against them adding a bit of value and profit over upgrades, but $200 for 8 GB more RAM is ruffling a lot of feathers. Few are complaining about the CPU or GPU being too expensive, the display, the body/keyboard... all of these tend to score the highest marks in consumer value ratings. It's those pesky RAM and SSD base stats that are universally criticized... items which used to be upgradable but now aren't.