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

[Lioness~]

Apple as the world’s most valuable company needs to stop being so 'sheepish' !!!
Oh, Timmy boy you’re a disgrace to your valuable customers.

For what it’s worth, I've had 16GB RAM for my portables since even before my 2018 MBA, and I'm considering taking next step up to 24GB on the next.
On my stationaries, ah well, even my 2008/09 was 32GB and even the purchase before that I suspect.
Today 64GB is a minimum to me.

 

[ghostface147]

I use Outlook, Excel for one football tournament thing I do, VMware fusion, maybe iMovie off and on, acrobat, safari, teams, rep and a chat program. I think I'm fine with 16 gigs.

 

[Motorola68000]

Nobody would complain about the 8GB base model if the RAM upgrades weren't multiple times more expensive than they should be.

The cost is not so much the memory, but incorporating it as unified memory, which is why I believe Apple should and WILL change the base config. of all the computing devices to 16Gb minimum. The higher end devices already have significantly higher base configurations

 

[bunce66]

8GB on a "Pro" machine is a joke. It's just to get people to automatically pay $200 extra for an upgrade to fatten their margins. It's becoming more absurd every year.

 

[boak]

The answer is Apple should not bother with 8Gb configuration at all. its not so much the memory cost its incorporating it as unified memory. If Apple are serious about games, then 16Gb should be the lowest configuration and this will save them on binning, as they need not produce it. The extra cost is insignificant as its offset by removing the cost of producing 8Gb set ups, and where they've already got the processing procedure for 16Gb.

Are the chips for different memory binned? I thought they were just binned based on CPU and GPU cores.

 

[P-DogNC]

Apple's base configs and upgrade pricing are completely delusional for 2023, almost 2024. There's no excuse to be selling hardware costing $1000+ with less than 16GB RAM and SSDs smaller than 512GB. 8GB/256GB is what I'd expect out of a $500 or $600 plastic, poorly built, mostly e-waste off the assembly line Windows laptop or Chromebook. Its not acceptable on anything else.

This!

For those who only require 8 GB of base memory and only do lighter, non-pro tasks, the MacBook Air is for you!

 

[shpankey]

Nobody would complain about the 8GB base model if the RAM upgrades weren't multiple times more expensive than they should be.

This. The insane markup and obvious money grab is what's absolutely appalling. This has the bad optics of appearing intentional.

 

[Klagarde]

The idea is here that the base model should never be sufficient. Because the 8gb model is for most users insufficient customers will start choosing what model to buy other than the base 8gb.

If apple started the base model at 16gb 80% would just choose the base model and apple would earn less revenue.

 

[ShiftHappens]

A couple of things I don't get in this topic...
1) Some argue that a base model having 8 gigs of RAM is good because some may not need more (even though we call it a Pro machine). So why isn't 4 gigs an option if I just want to use my Pro machine to display the time and perhaps do occasional CPU (but not RAM) intense calculations?
2) The argument that unified memory itself should count as more than what the label says... Unified means that you're using it for things you'd normally use your RAM for, but also for what you'd otherwise put in VRAM. That should mean the opposite - that 8 gigs of unified RAM should count as less than 8 gigs of non-unified RAM. Even if the access to that RAM is faster than it would be if it wasn't next to the CPUs/GPUs in the SOC, you'd still run out of it if your workload needs more than you have (and swapping is not an Apple concept)...

 

[Fishrrman]

As I've been posting in this forum for a few years now...
When it comes to Apple Silicon,
16 is "the new 8" ...

Say it out loud.

Buying any m-series Mac with 8gb of RAM in 2023 is the equivalent of buying a 2014 Mini in 2016 that has only 4gb of RAM. It will "run" -- but it will feel more like it's "walking".
Or even... crawling.

 

[boak]

Not everyone needs an iPhone with 8GB of RAM, but Apple decided it’s what’s best for it, so it has it…

Correct. Apple would have done the market research that there would not be much extra profit in offering different memory levels, i.e. increase in revenue does not cover the cost of increasing the number of SKUs.

This market segmentation, in fact, is done by Pro vs base models.

 

[Motorola68000]

Are the chips for different memory binned? I thought they were just binned based on CPU and GPU cores.

MapleBeercules said:
This is a production thing and not a marketing thing. Chips dont always come out perfect, so you need to bin them for what class they fall under, if you have a m3 chip that can operate just fine with 8gb of ram and 256gb of storage, why throw it out?! This is why intel has so many product lines when a new chip is released and the top chips are so expensive, they try to price out the demand curve for the high end product and sell everyone the binned ones.

 

[theluggage]

RAM is cheap... but we're talking big bricks you slot into a PC rig. Apple Silicon RAM is quite different, and therefore probably WAY more expensive to manufacture and supply?

Its the same LPDDR5 RAM that you get in Dell XPS, ThinkPad etc. laptops with similar form factor (and which generally offer 16GB minumum and/or much cheaper BTO upgrades on anything costing more than $1k), the only difference is that PCs have the chips surface-mounted on the board while Apple Silicon has the chips surface mounted directly on the processor package (but they're not part of the Apple Silicon die).

Likewise, the actual flash memory chips in the SSD are no different to the "commodity" chips you'll find on the faster PCIe 4 M.2 sticks for a fraction of the price of Apple's upgrades, the difference being that M.2 sticks include a SSD controller (usually an ARM-based microcontroller) whereas Apple Silicon has that built into the processor - so there's less to the SSD upgrades.

Sure, Apple's RAM and SSD isn't the cheap stuff you'll find in low-end systems but the better stuff isn't that much more expensive. Apple's base specs and upgrade prices are still substantially worse than the other top-5 PC makers' premium ranges.

 

[CarAnalogy]

Disagree. There's an option to upgrade if needed. Why should customers pay for more memory they don't need?

This is a separate discussion from the pricing of memory.

Because it's a $1600 laptop. It's possibly the only $1600 laptop in the world someone will try to sell with 8 GB of RAM and a straight face.

 

[GMShadow]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know there'd be a drawback to 8GB of RAM.

And it doesn't take more than two braincells to know MaxTech is clickbait garbage that uses disproven methodologies and faked results to sell a narrative.

 

[boak]

1) Some argue that a base model having 8 gigs of RAM is good because some may not need more (even though we call it a Pro machine). So why isn't 4 gigs an option if I just want to use my Pro machine to display the time and perhaps do occasional CPU (but not RAM) intense calculations?

Because Apple has done the market research to know that the market that uses the MBP to display the time and perhaps do occasional CPU (but not RAM) intense calculations is insignificant. The extra cost of having this configuration outweighs the revenue that can be earned from these customers.

 

[boak]

Because it's a $1600 laptop. It's possibly the only $1600 laptop in the world someone will try to sell with 8 GB of RAM and a straight face.

So your issue is with the pricing. Not the 8 GB option in the lineup.

You could very well treat the starting price as $1800 and complain about the price.

 

[ProfessionalFan]

I love the concept of disparaging MaxTech and this video just because you don't like his findings. It's like if it's not what you believe, it must be wrong and he must be a liar. Yet, none of those people provided evidence to the contrary.

 

[Veinticinco]

The drag is not only the money. The bigger drag is that you generally can’t just walk into a store and buy a 16GB one. Has to be special ordered.

It's almost as if they wanted to drive sales of these gimped, profit-max machines, with vast majority of non-Pro buyers thinking they've got a bargain with a "Pro" machine.

 

[boak]

I love the concept of disparaging MaxTech and this video just because you don't agree with the findings. It's like if it's not what you believe, it must be wrong and he must be a liar. Yet, none of those people provided disputing evidence to the contrary.

But he IS wrong.

 

[CarAnalogy]

So, those poor corporate suckers trying to do their job get the worst option:

1. If you just surf the web, you might as well get a bigger 15” MacBook Air with the same RAM, for less money

2. If you do use apps that actually perform better with an M3 rather than M2, you almost certainly need more RAM

Maybe this helps corporate purchasing departments, but it doesn’t help employees

And every new version of macOS uses more memory, so while 8 GB may be barely tolerable today, in 2-3 years it will be a doorstop

Planned obsolescence is not good for climate change, but it’s great for profits

I admit I couldn't watch that entire segment, but I doubt Mother Nature thought to ask about that.

 

[tweaknmod]

While I’d prefer 16gb was the base, I think a lot of people are hung up on a branding/marketing term.

“Pro” means nothing.

Consider what you need, look at the specs of what is available, and purchase accordingly.

Apple using marketing tactics to differentiate their offerings does not need to insult anyone’s personal definition of what a professional device should be. Let it go.

 

[andrewxgx]

inb4 apple reporting another disappointing mac sales quarter
8gb in a premium device is a joke

 

[CarAnalogy]

But he IS wrong.

Are you saying the testing was flawed? Seems like the only difference was the RAM and he didn't do anything ridiculous. One crashed, the other didn't. One had higher end options available, the other didn't. The only point is that this is not a good look for a machine that starts at $1600 and essentially requires a $200 upgrade to be fully functional. It should not crash or limit functionality due to too little base RAM.

Where's the lie?

 

[boak]

Tests like these present a dilemma for customers looking to purchase a new MacBook Pro (or a new 8GB iMac, for that matter). Settling for 8GB appears to hinder the M3 chip's performance

This makes zero sense. Every memory option lower than the maximum offered for each chip hinders the chip's performance. This is not unique to an 8 GB model.