Again, we don’t have hard data that proves whether or not Apple’s paying more or less for their Apple Silicon chips. It seems that Apple spent billions on just the tape-outs for the M3 chips.
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
It's pretty safe to assume Apple pays a lot less than retail cost on the difference between 8GB and 16GB for the extra 8GB of RAM. And what does 8GB of RAM cost at retail, $25? So we can almost certain it costs Apple a lot less than $25.
No, no, no we don’t know that! Apple could indeed be paying MORE than retail consumers despite their volume.
It really isn't, though. A new, current-generation config with lower specs was inserted. How is that a "discount"?
This is true. However, we have no reason to believe it's small.
It isn't $50. It's $50 - $40. You're not adding to the other chip; you're choosing a different chip.
Again, unsure why you would think the margins are thin.
They're offering the MacBook Air with the same specs at $1,299. That leaves $300 for a better display and sound system, and more ports. That's it.
That's not "potentially thin margins", but rather an adequate pricing. But on top of that, it already factors in that they charge $200 for the SSD upgrade, which, let me tell you, is not what an SSD costs Apple.
Indeed it doesn't. In one case, it costs them X, and in the other case, it also costs them X, i.e. exactly the same amount of money.
The same hardware minus a different chip and a few minor differences costed $2,000 previously, and now can be bought for $1,600. That is a fairly major difference in price. That presumably already made a dent in the margins that Apple’s making. We don’t know for sure, but it’s an alternative possibility we should consider since we don’t know for sure.
Exactly! Maybe it's a big charity thing? Like Apple pay 2x as much for RAM as everyone else, and the producers donate it to the charity of their choice?
NewEgg has 8GB DIMMs for $25 and less. Like this one:
v-color 8GB DDR4 DRAM 3200MHz (PC4-25600) CL22 1.2V U-DIMM Desktop Memory Ram Upgrade Module TD48G32S822-VC - Newegg.com
Buy v-color 8GB DDR4 DRAM 3200MHz (PC4-25600) CL22 1.2V U-DIMM Desktop Memory Ram Upgrade Module TD48G32S822-VC with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!
I know this isn't the packaging or exact type of RAM but just showing how cheap it is.
You're forgetting that Apple uses very expensive LPDDR, for… reasons. Gold plating or something. And then they use a manufacturing process that's wildly different depending on size. Or something.
Oh interesting. So now twice the RAM is “a minor difference”?
NewEgg has 8GB DIMMs for $25 and less. Like this one:
v-color 8GB DDR4 DRAM 3200MHz (PC4-25600) CL22 1.2V U-DIMM Desktop Memory Ram Upgrade Module TD48G32S822-VC - Newegg.com
Buy v-color 8GB DDR4 DRAM 3200MHz (PC4-25600) CL22 1.2V U-DIMM Desktop Memory Ram Upgrade Module TD48G32S822-VC with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!www.newegg.com
I know this isn't the packaging or exact type of RAM but just showing how cheap it is.
Yeah, but DIMM is a fair bit cheaper than LPDDR. Also, other than being nicer to swap, it’s slower, and draws more power.
It proves it doesn't cost them more than retail prices, it also proves it way less than that. It's standard of the shelves components you and I can buy. It's doesn't matter if it's 8GB or 16GB, it is exactly the same they do to create either one of them. The only difference between a 8GB or 16GB model is what they payed for the chip.
I’m talking about the chassis, not the chip. RAM is part of the chip (I wasn’t saying that the RAM configuration was a minor difference, I was talking about potential minor differences in I/O or other such hardware elements, I think someone said it had a slower port or something). Heck, the whole motherboard is probably a bit different, but I’m particularly talking about the external user-facing hardware and features such as the display, speakers, battery runtime, ports, etc that used to only be available for customers willing to pay $2,000. Now they can pay $1,600 and benefit from these things, and can pay $1,800 (still $200 cheaper) to get one with 16GB RAM if they’re worried about it.
Last edited:
It proves nothing. We still don’t know what costs are involved in production of the different configurations. You first have to assume a number for what Apple pays for RAM (info we don’t have), then assume there aren’t any additional costs involved in the process we aren’t aware of (more info we don’t have), assume that Apple isn’t already taking a big cut off of their margins by offering most of the same hardware for $400 cheaper than prior years (which doesn’t make much sense) and then based on those assumptions, assume that big mean Apple is just depriving all of us poor little urchins by providing a lower base spec that seems to be very popular and sell very well, but is somehow “anti-customer” because some people want the 16GB configuration, but don’t want to pay for it. This doesn’t make sense. Even the 16GB configuration is cheaper than the base spec 14” MacBook Pro from 2021 and 2022. The shock-jock YouTubers weren’t wining about the price of the base spec those years, or the RAM specs on them. Many were espousing the virtues of these more expensive models, and were calling them a “great value”. But now that Apple has added an M3 MacBook Pro with most of the same hardware in the same RAM configuration for $200 cheaper, and an even cheaper configuration for those who don’t need gobs of RAM for $400 cheaper, now these people are in an uproar. Evil Apple is just slighting consumers by giving them a cheaper point of entry to get that great display, speakers, battery runtime, and ports, things that are far more important than 16GB of RAM for many people. 🙄
No, they're offering the same machine they'd previously for $1,299 for $1,599, with a better chassis.
Untrue. The previous $1,299 machine didn’t have the same expensive display, sound system, etc. that the 14” MacBook Pro has. The new base spec is just that, a new base spec of the 14” MacBook Pro, not a separate model cutting costs in a ton of ways like using an older and lesser quality display, less ports, etc like the separate model of 13” MacBook Pro they used to sell that used an entirely different chassis, and had lesser quality hardware. Arguing that the new 14” base spec is the “same machine” as the old 13” model that had an entirely different chassis, display, ports selection, etc. is disingenuous… The fact of the matter is, it used to cost $2,000 to get a MacBook Pro with that chassis, display, speakers, battery runtime, etc. Now it costs $1,600, and even if you want 16GB RAM, you can still save money at $1,800 rather than $2,000.
You clearly don't understand what tooling is? the tooling for the 16Gb production line is already in existence and just increasing the run would make no difference to the tooling, whereas closing down the 8Gb production line results in a saving. Let alone an increased production run of 16Gb brings significant economies of scale, but surprised that you even suggested the need to retool for 16Gb because its absurd.
You don't replace the 8Gb with 16Gb tooling: it already in existence.
Best regards though, as your entitled to your opinion and whilst I disagree with it, I'd fight for your right to have your opinion whether its considered wrong or right.
Discounting a product is not indicative of its cost to Apple or anyone else?
I’m not sure you understand what I’m trying to say. Say you have a machine that attaches the RAM, and a conveyer belt that moves the chips through the line. That conveyer belt can only hold so many units, and can only move so fast. I’m guessing each production “line” likely actually has many of these machines in order to process the number of units needed within the timeframe needed. I don’t know exactly how this works, but this is my best guess. If that’s the case, then the 8GB “line” would have more such machines to accommodate for the higher demand for these chips. If my understanding is correct, and this is how it works, then removing the 8GB line all together rather than retooling would mean less machines to create these chips, which could create issues for supply with the now increased demand for 16GB chips since that would then be the base spec configuration. Again, I don’t know for sure that this is the way that works, but this is my understanding of how it works from what I’ve read and heard.
Thanks for that, I defend your right to your opinion also. Best regards to you as well. 👍🏻
As there's already tooling, closing the 8Gb line results in a saving to Apple, both in terms of the RAM and unifying that RAM. In the case of the 16Gb an increased production results in significant cost savings, and all that is needed is to extend the run time which is precisely what they do for the 8Gb run as they don't know how many will be ordered and can just churn out more and the same applies with the 16Gb run, but economies of scale resulting in a cheaper per piece run, and cheaper RAM unified.
As yet I've not seen any evidence of RAM being upgraded on M series chips on the finished device by anyone albeit the RAM is nothing special in itself (to use the pun they are available and cheap as chips) and I seem to recall they are Hynix 128-bit LPDDR4X SDRAM, and at large scale purchase would I'm sure be negated by cost savings in the extra 16Gb run and eliminating the 8Gb run, but we have upgraded the SSD, which is doable and at a fraction of the price it would cost normally, but we can't let those out to clients as it would be outside of our duty of care to our customers and would not be covered by any Apple warranties and where doing that as a research and development experiment would not affect Apple sales.
I would though politely ask that you never request evidence i.e. from Apple employees or any schematics emanating from Apple to be posted, as it would likely involve the banning of a poster, and possible/likely action by Apple as employees would inevitably have signed an NDA and even third party distributors may be bound by an NDA.
it is suggested that a Chinese company has successfully upgraded both RAM and SSD, but I've not seen any compelling evidence of them updating the RAM yet, but it would not surprise me if they have upgraded both? We've not tried to update the RAM.
This link covers the upgrading of M1 RAM and SSD, but I don't consider it compelling evidence its been done successfully.
Last edited:
I still don’t know that we’re talking about the same thing, but that’s ok, we don’t have to agree.
As to the bit about asking people to post reports from Apple HQ, I’ve never done any such thing. I have simply pointed out that without hard evidence like that, all we have is merely speculation and nothing else. We don’t have any hard numbers or evidence about what costs are involved. Clearly the 8GB configurations seem to be selling very well, so it seems most base spec customers are happy with 8GB base spec models. Those who want to upgrade to a 16GB configuration can. There’s no scandal here, even though some seek to turn it into one. Customers now have a cheaper price of entry for a 14” MacBook Pro with the wonderful display, speakers, battery runtime, ports, etc. That’s a net positive for customers, not a negative. It especially seems disingenuous coming from the clickbait YouTubers who were singing the praises of the $2,000 base spec 14” MacBook Pro previous years, and then, all of a sudden when Apple decides to introduce a cheaper base spec configuration for the 14” MacBook Pro, are hating on it and saying it shouldn’t exist. Heck, you can even upgrade to 16GB RAM if that matters to you, and still save compared to the prior 14” base spec pricing from previous years. Watching this cycle long enough, these clickbait YouTubers and mediaites need to create some artificial scandal for every new Mac release (and iPadOS release when they act shocked every time that iPadOS has been improved rather than being replaced with macOS). It’s clickbait.
That’s my opinion. You’re free to disagree, but that’s the way I see it. And none of the claims here about the costs of these things for Apple are actually provable, they’re just opinions. Besides, people making the “but it wouldn’t cost Apple more” argument are projecting that cost is the only factor that matters when making business decisions. There are many different factors involved in developing Apple’s product strategy. Could Apple add a complimentary stick of lipstick with every MacBook? Probably. Should they? Probably not… Apple has the most data available on the subject, so they’re better equipped to judge whether it would be better for their base spec models to ship with 8GB of RAM or 16GB than anyone here…
You're just repeating what I said in more words.
And it used to cost $1,300 to get a MacBook Pro; now it costs $1,600. And if you want any reasonable configuration, you're paying at least $1,800.
5X now, but, yep. SG Hynix LPDDR5X.
"Can you solder a different RAM chip and have the result boot" is an interesting party trick, but I've seen zero evidence that it wouldn't be compatible. It's simply a physically difficult procedure.
Could Apple in theory put very special™ SG Hynix chips in there? Sure. But why? What would they do that standard ones don't?
I have not seen the Apple assembly process but I have seen modern PCB assembly. Small components are delivered and a handled on rolls of tape and medium sized components are handled in tubes holding many of the same chips. It is very unlikely that RAM chips are handed individually on a conveyer belt. It is not like an automobile assembly line. Most “retooling” consists of updating instructions, updating software, loading new chips and testing. There are probably multiple parallel lines and each line can produce any of the offer options with just a “flip of a switch” as long as they use the same PCB.
You claimed it was the same machine. It isn’t. The machine they used to offer for $1,300 was far different from the new one they offer at $1,600. The only similarity was that they were both laptops and called MacBook Pro. The similarities basically end there. It made no sense to continue to produce the 13” MacBook Pro when the new MacBook Air offers basically all of the advantages of that older MacBook Pro platform with the exception of the fan (which doesn’t seem to make considerable performance difference on the base M chips). The old 13” MacBook Pro was wildly different from the new 14” base-spec MacBook Pro. And besides, most people here aren’t upset because Apple discontinued the 13” MacBook Pro, they’re upset because Apple offers a MacBook Pro with 8GB of RAM. That prior 13” MacBook Pro model came with an 8GB RAM base spec as well, and the MacBook Air comes with an 8GB base spec. This is basically just an artificial scandal meant to whip some people up and generate clicks. If we look at the market, it seems like plenty of people are buying these 8GB base spec models and are happy with them. Otherwise we wouldn’t expect to see them running out of stock so often, and so many positive reviews (plus record Mac customer satisfaction).
Perhaps that’s the case. I don’t know. And with the RAM being directly connected to the CPU unlike most other PCs which use a bus connection, it could affect the pricing. Perhaps due to extra care required to ensure the M-chip isn’t damaged in the process. Who knows. I just know that Apple has all of the actual data, and so in the best position to determine whether or not their base spec models should ship with 8GB or 16GB of RAM.
Perhaps they’re specifically designed for Apple’s Unified Memory system, this is a possibility that can’t be discounted, since we lack evidence in the other direction. So rather than being an ordinary chip, they could possibly be specifically optimized for this use. It wouldn’t be the only hardware in the Macs that are specifically optimized for the system.