You simply don’t know that to be true. That’s your opinion, and I respect that, but we don’t have hard data to prove that as a matter of fact.
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
Kal, I have no doubt yo are being honest with us here about your results using the amount of RAM you are using. The issue is - other people have not* been able to match your results and do have issues. Why should anyone have issues with the amount of software engaged? Honestly, I have issue with multiple web pages open because it only takes one or two "memory gobblers" to create issues.
I do believe 8 gigs should be enough but at the same time I know that to make it acceptable, the OS needs to do a better job of memory management. As well, it would be wise if Safari also was given an upgrade to allow for better use of memory. I believe Opera browser used to offer end-user options for this.
For me, this is such an amusing discussion as I remember video cards with 2 megs of VRAM, 8 megs of system RAM as being powerhouse machines in their day. Here we are talking gigs of RAM. I digress.
I’m not saying that 8GB is enough for everyone, but I believe it’s enough for a base spec. The base spec isn’t supposed to be enough for everyone. Many people absolutely should choose a higher configuration, and that probably wouldn’t change even if they raised the base spec to a higher one.
I don’t believe that there would be a cost associated with retool for a different RAM baseline either. Each new model year requires a board spin to accommodate a new processor and other updated chips anyways. And retooling the assembly of electronics is more about software and instruction updates than actual mechanical changes anyways.
The issue with 8GB is not on the manufacturing side. It is all about sales and greed. And the huge profit Apple can rack in by overcharging for upgraded RAM. As long as 8GB will work well enough, Apple will keep it as a baseline. Apple is already making noises like “Apple AI only requires 8GB to run”, not that it runs well just that it’s sufficient. The only things will make Apple upgrade the baseline are:
- Basic software won’t run.
- People stop buying new 8GB hardware.
Perhaps beyond “sales and greed” Apple just wants to offer a product that many people are happy with…? If it isn’t broken, why “fix” it?
More people will be happy with a Mac that starts at 12 than one that starts at 8. We can quibble over whether this helps 10% of people, 30%, or 50% (with the advent of Apple Intelligence, the number is probably even higher than that), but at the end of the day, this is Apple not wanting to eat a few dollars' worth of margin. Which was fair for a while, but we're approaching the point where it's ridiculous.
And they’re already offering the new base spec MacBook Pro at a $400 discount from previous base-spec MacBook Pros. So they’ve already eaten quite a bit of margin…
I don’t think Apple particularly cares about happiness, I think a better term is satisfaction. And for many (most) that is enough. For pure processing thoughput, even a Chromebook would be sufficient, it’s other features (display, workmanship, reliability, battery life, simplicity) that makes Apple an incrementally preferred choice to many users. And as long as there are willing to pay an Apple premium, they are entitled to remain satisfied. To some degree ignorance is bliss.
Does simply buying a MacBook Pro not fall into the reliability/simplicity argument we all laud apple for against the competition? A simple buy it and forget, stop worrying about specs a good percentage of pros might need for their work? Or does it only apply when convenient?
The issue I have with this ongoing circle is that you have a select few who are applying their own interpretations of what a 'Pro' machine means. The others with more sensible arguments are coming from those are saying that there is much left to be desired for those who want to get some pretty demanding work done.
What's worse is the lack of flexibility from a company that proudly highlights their environmental efforts with pretty PDFs listed on their website to go along with cringe videos playing during keynotes. In the past when Apple shipped Macs that might not have adequate storage or RAM for higher end users one could simply pop open the lid and mitigate the problem themselves. Those days are long gone and looks like they will never come back unless the EU comes in and forces a change.
What's worse is that this is no longer the company that was still looking to find its footing after launching the iPod and switching to Intel. A simple, clean solution is to offer an option to upgrade for AppleCare+ customers.
So if someone could only afford or believe that a base MacBook Pro and wants to upgrade their machine a simple $200 to upgrade the RAM (or whatever the cost was at the time of purchase) to go along with a $100 service fee should be enough to satisfy everyone. Apple gets the sweet markup they clearly do not want to let go and most users wouldn't feel completely ripped off as a $100 service fee seems fair.
Upgrades are limited to a one time service per device. Upgrade the RAM, Storage, CPU...whatever all in one shot and live with the decision from there on out after paying the cost to upgrade and the $100 service fee on top of it.
The issue I have with this ongoing circle is that you have a select few who are applying their own interpretations of what a 'Pro' machine means. The others with more sensible arguments are coming from those are saying that there is much left to be desired for those who want to get some pretty demanding work done.
What's worse is the lack of flexibility from a company that proudly highlights their environmental efforts with pretty PDFs listed on their website to go along with cringe videos playing during keynotes. In the past when Apple shipped Macs that might not have adequate storage or RAM for higher end users one could simply pop open the lid and mitigate the problem themselves. Those days are long gone and looks like they will never come back unless the EU comes in and forces a change.
What's worse is that this is no longer the company that was still looking to find its footing after launching the iPod and switching to Intel. A simple, clean solution is to offer an option to upgrade for AppleCare+ customers.
So if someone could only afford or believe that a base MacBook Pro and wants to upgrade their machine a simple $200 to upgrade the RAM (or whatever the cost was at the time of purchase) to go along with a $100 service fee should be enough to satisfy everyone. Apple gets the sweet markup they clearly do not want to let go and most users wouldn't feel completely ripped off as a $100 service fee seems fair.
Upgrades are limited to a one time service per device. Upgrade the RAM, Storage, CPU...whatever all in one shot and live with the decision from there on out after paying the cost to upgrade and the $100 service fee on top of it.
Last edited:
The cost for retooling is zero. It's the same physical chip with less ram inside.
We simply don’t know and can’t know what this change would cost for Apple to implement with their production system. Unless anyone has insider information with screenshots of reports from Apple HQ about the costs involved, which clearly we don’t have. All we can do is guess. Some people think their guesses are better than others, but they’re all just guesses. We simply have zero hard data on this.
Zero.
Apple HQ does not install chips.
We can buy chip A and solder it or buy chip B and solder it and realize they’re the exact same external size, same pins, same everything, just different internal densities.
Some people actually know what RAM is.
A. Again, we don’t know this to be true, because we simply can’t, we don’t have direct data from the source.
B. I know that, I’m saying we don’t have reports about the expenses involved from Apple HQ (Apple HQ presumably does handle such expense reports).
C. Ad hominems like claiming that I don’t know what RAM is when I do is not productive for debate. I have replaced RAM cards in an old MacBook that I owned, I know what RAM is…
Look at teardowns, then.
And yet you keep pretending there’s something magical Apple does that’s more expensive (why?) and involves more complicated manufacturing (sounds pretty bad).
There is not. They have Foxconn or Quanta solder an SG Hynix LPDDR chip on the SoC package. That’s all.
Anything else is very unlikely, and you’ve brought forward zero reasons why they would do that.
So if you feel ad-hominem-attacked, it’s because the arguments you’ve brought forward so far have been absurd.
I’ve merely pointed out that you don’t know these things to be true. These are your opinions. Which is ok, there’s nothing wrong with opinions, but that is not the same as having hard data on the exact prices Apple pays for their RAM, how much manufacturing costs, etc. These are big unknowns.
And whether you think my observations are “absurd” or not doesn’t give anyone license to dish out ad-hominems. I am not doing so to you, I would appreciate the same courtesy be returned. I’m sure you believe what you’re saying, and have good reasons you think what you’re saying is correct. I disagree with you. I have good reasons for my opinion. Both of our opinions are valid opinions.
I also don’t know there won’t be a nuclear strike destroying my house in twelve hours, but probably not.
No, I don’t know that Apple hasn’t done something very odd with their RAM, and then asked SG Hynix to conceal it by making chip markings very similar to off the shelf products. But not only is that unlikely, you also haven’t brought forward a hypothesis as to why they would do that, and have given the appearance that your expertise in this area is lacking. So no, I don’t buy it, and neither should anyone else.
But that’s the thing. You do not. You’re reverse-engineering “maybe it’s expensive because xyz”. No, it’s expensive because it’s what Apple customers have been willing to pay.
I’m saying that it’s a possibility that it’s expensive. We don’t know. Even if we assume you’re hypothesis that it is expensive, that still can’t be known beyond a shadow of a doubt.
My main point has been that Apple already deeply discounted the price for the base-spec MacBook Pro. Who’s to say what margins Apple is making on these base models? We don’t know. But most of the hardware is likely as expensive as it is in the more expensive models, you’re still getting the same expensive display tech etc. So Apple is likely already making lower margins on these new base-spec models than they were with the prior years base spec 14” models.
Yes we do. The guy feeding chips to the machine puts the 16GB chips into it and tells the printer for the sticker to put 16GB on it. That’s it.
I'm not sure what that means.
Previously, they had the 2016 chassis for $1,299. Now they have the 2021 chassis for $1,599.
If you take the Mac mini with M2 and configure it close to the one with M2 Pro (specifically, bump the RAM and SSD), it's $999 vs. $1,299.
If you take the MacBook Pro with M3 and configure it close to the one with M3 Pro (bump the RAM to 16 vs. 18; the SSD is already the same), it's $1,799 vs. $1,999.
So the "Pro" SoC is a $200-300 upgrade vs. the non-Pro, and doubling the RAM from 8 to 16 is $200.
Of course, these are BTO prices. The margin from them can be expected to be well above Apple's average margin. Instead of 35-45%, you can expect it to be easily double that. And since we know what LPDDR costs, we can tell that it's actually much higher.
This is simply Apple upgrading the previous low-end Pro to have the new chassis, and taking the previous $2k chassis entry point down to $1.6k. Which, yes, if you look at it as "I really want that chassis; I don't care about performance as much", you can now get it for $400 less. But not really, because odds are you want to upgrade the specs.
No. There are multiple videos of people removing the chips and putting standard of the shelves chip on it. They are working just fine.
As Apple themselves stated this year, build costs have fallen in recent years as component costs have plummeted in the last decade. They've enjoyed widening margins as a result. Add to this they no longer need to pay Intel for the processors, instead using variations of the iPhone chips, which has also been saving a lot of money.
And? The base 14” MacBook Pro is now discounted by a significant margin. We don’t know how much margin is left that Apple actually gets in profit, so trying to demand an even steeper discount by potentially increasing production costs (even if it’s around $50, that adds up quickly), and removing some upgrade purchases, doesn’t seem to consider the good of the other party in the transaction, namely Apple. At this rate, they’d probably just move up to $1,800 for the base spec so it wouldn’t mess with the already potentially thin margins, or at least $1,700 to split the difference. They don’t need to give things away for free, they’re a business. They need to make sure a product is worth selling by ensuring they actually see enough profit from it to make it worthwhile.
And that doesn’t have anything to do with what it costs Apple to produce these units…