Same; I don’t offer 8 to employees. If 12 were an option, I’d probably go with that for some departments.
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
Same; I don’t offer 8 to employees. If 12 were an option, I’d probably go with that for some departments.
That doesn’t follow. Say Joe custom orders a high performance CPU for his gaming computer and has it installed. Then Andy goes after Joe, uninstalls Joe’s custom CPU, and replaces it with a generic one because they both use the same pin interface, does that prove that Joe’s CPU wasn’t made to custom performance parameters? No, it doesn’t. All it proves is that Joe’s custom CPU uses the same pin interface as the generic ones. The same could be true of Apple’s RAM chips. They could have custom ordered them for the particular performance metrics they wanted to achieve with them. Since we lack evidence, we can’t fairly just say “it isn’t a possibility”.
It sounds like a lot of the argument stems from the different mindsets of innocent until proven guilty vs guilty until proven innocent, but also confusion about whether evidence is circumstantial or direct.
And what all of this misses is that it doesn’t really matter what Apple pays for their RAM, as their upgrade costs are competitive with other vendors in the same category. Apple is a business, not a charity. They don’t give things away for free. Even low-end PCs that use antiquated RAM cards usually charge more for the RAM upgrade than just the cost of the RAM cards themselves. This is the way the computer market works.
I just had a look at the big makers of PC laptops... In Germany no offers less than 16GB for MacBook Air or MacBook Pro competitors, on 2024 laptops. In fact, for less than a MacBook Air you can get laptops with 32GB RAM/1 TB SSD/120hz screen. I see why Apple struggles comparatively in Germany...
Here's an example: https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Vivobook-Display-Windows-Keyboard-Neutral/dp/B086ZSXKSC I'm not saying I'd personally buy that instead of a MacBook Pro. I just wanted to point out that internationally the debate over 8 vs 16 is long dead, and it's now 16 vs 32. Also, you can update from 16 to 32 for as little as €50.
Here's an example: https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Vivobook-Display-Windows-Keyboard-Neutral/dp/B086ZSXKSC I'm not saying I'd personally buy that instead of a MacBook Pro. I just wanted to point out that internationally the debate over 8 vs 16 is long dead, and it's now 16 vs 32. Also, you can update from 16 to 32 for as little as €50.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
And it isn’t in the same league as the MacBook Pro. That might be a MacBook Air competitor at best. The MacBook Pro is in its own league. The battery runtime on that crappy PC is likely nowhere near the battery runtime on the MacBook Pro. And it’s using an antiquated X86 chip, vs the MacBook Pro’s M3. It’s just a laughable comparison. I could look for any number of bargain-bin computers, but those aren’t going to compare to a MacBook Pro… And I’ve repeatedly shown several examples of PCs charging similar, the same, or more than Apple does for RAM upgrades…
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Anyone not blinkered by bias will tell you that different laptops serve different purposes. If a task was RAM dependant, that ASUS laptop would run rings around a base MacBook Pro, for much much less cash.
Certain posters cry endlessly here, saying that "for most people 8GB is enough". Well, for "most people" surely a good Intel processor is enough, by that logic. Apple and good Intel processors both fly on basic tasks.
As regards things like battery life and quadruple the storage... well, for some people, one is more significant than the other. To get those RAM and storage specs on a Mac you'd have to pay about double the total price, and you'd still be left with a screen that is 60hz rather than 120hz, but you'd get a nicer trackpad and stuff on a Mac, of course. Every manufacturer chooses which corners they cut, and customers have to choose what negatives impact them the most.
Certain posters cry endlessly here, saying that "for most people 8GB is enough". Well, for "most people" surely a good Intel processor is enough, by that logic. Apple and good Intel processors both fly on basic tasks.
As regards things like battery life and quadruple the storage... well, for some people, one is more significant than the other. To get those RAM and storage specs on a Mac you'd have to pay about double the total price, and you'd still be left with a screen that is 60hz rather than 120hz, but you'd get a nicer trackpad and stuff on a Mac, of course. Every manufacturer chooses which corners they cut, and customers have to choose what negatives impact them the most.
And the point I’m making isn’t that those laptops aren’t useful for anyone, but that the MacBook Pro should be more expensive than that, it delivers higher quality. Trying to compare a premium, high-end machine against a bargain-bin special is a bad comparison. Of course I can buy a Ford SUV cheaper than a Porsche or Lamborghini SUV, but the Ford isn’t comparable to Porsche, and the Porsche shouldn’t be expected to be as cheap as the Ford because it delivers a higher quality experience. Saying “I can get a Ford SUV with a V8, so my Porsche SUV shouldn’t have a V6 option” doesn’t make any sense. This is the same kind of situation…
Comparing Apple Macs to luxury vehicles is funny. In my mind Macs are still just computers to get things done, and not some fashion statement. Does Apple put more effort into design and UX compared to other manufacturers? Sure. But the basic utility is essentially the same.
I dunno about "run rings around". If it's very RAM-dependent and heavily parallelized, maybe. The 185H simply isn't that fast a chip, probably largely because Meteor Lake is their first chiplet generation, so reliability at scale was the bigger concern.
(I'm also unsure about Windows 11's memory compression algorithm and how it compares to macOS 14's. I believe macOS recently switched from WKdm to a different algorithm?)
It's not a super chip, agreed, but decent- however a very fast chip's speed is quickly negated if a system only has 1/4 of the RAM a task needs. My partner's work laptop is one of the fastest and most expensive Windows laptops on the market, exceeding a fully specced MacBook Pro Max, and even that can be choked and ground to a near halt on some of the AI models she works on because the RAM use is astronomical. (Why does she still run them locally you might ask- data sensitivity.)
The point I'm making is that the world's best CPUs and GPUs can't stretch their legs if handicapped by limited RAM. Try running a pretty basic LLM on a Mac with 8GB vs one with 32GB. The speed difference is night and day (I've personally tested it out of morbid curiosity, only to end the test rather quickly as my MacBook Air's thermals went through they roof as the system was hammered in every which way, while getting nowhere fast.)
And a Porsche SUV still offers basic utility. It’s just also a higher quality, better built, premium vehicle. The same is true of Macs. Mac’s are more of a premium product. They’re built to higher quality standards than the cheap plastic junk that floods the computer market. They have high quality displays, high quality sound systems, the MacBook Pro especially is not competing with the plastic bargain bin garbage. They’re a high-end top of the line machine. So obviously they’re going to command a price tag. And when comparing the pricing of the MacBook Pro against several other laptops that are actually somewhat comparable, we find that the pricing is about the same or more, and the RAM upgrades cost about the same or more.
The 8GB configuration will support Apple Intelligence. And nobody’s saying someone with a RAM taxing workflow should buy a base spec of anything. I think that would be extremely unadvisable. Base Spec models aren’t supposed to support every possible workflow, they’re supposed to cover the baseline. For those who want or need more RAM, Apple sells those configurations.
Haha. Comparing Macs to Porsche cars is ridiculous. If you insist on car brand analogies, then maybe Volkswagen would be more fitting. A little overpriced for what they are, but solid boring design and good utility.
I'm glad you do. 👍🏼 Judging by the thumbs down I got it seems like someone else didn't. 😂
Only in your opinion is it ridiculous. But in my opinion when looking at the market, Macs are a high-end lineup, they’re not the bargain-bin junk that competes at the bottom of the stack. I don’t think anyone else is making higher-end or more premium computers than Apple is with the Macs. So I think the Porsche analogy is very fitting. But even if you want to take issue with comparing specific vehicle brands, I think you can get the point I’m making. The cylinder count of the engine on an SUV isn’t the most important stat for lots and lots of people. The more important parts for many people in that market are fuel economy, build-quality, comfort of the seating arrangement and sound system, etc. This is why several people buy more expensive SUVs that have lower engine cylinder counts. You apparently value the engine cylinder count (RAM spec), but many other people would rather pay more for an SUV with a smaller cylinder count, but better fuel economy/range (battery runtime), better stereo (sound system) better luxury features (display quality, etc.). This is why there’s a market full of choices. If you want one of those bargain bin specials, go ahead, buy away, but if you want the high-end Mac, you should expect to pay the corresponding price. Comparing high-end products against mediocre at best, and claiming the high-end is overpriced isn’t a fair comparison, because you’re just ignoring the things you don’t think matter that make the high-end model more appealing to many people.
I don't completely disagree with you. Macs are fine computers and work much better out of the box than Windows based PCs in my opinion. What I take issue with is Apple's pricing strategy for drive space and RAM. If they charged more for processing power I'd say fine. You need a high performance machine, you have to pay more. But shipping computers with 256 GB and 16 GB of RAM is like selling a Porsche with a three cylinder 100 hp downsized motor. There is nothing premium about it.
I disagree on the pricing system, I don’t think offering a lower base spec with less RAM that’s also cheaper than the prior base spec makes it less premium. The main hardware advantages of the MacBook Pro such as the display and sound system are still present on these models, so for those who want those things, and don’t need excess RAM, they now have a cheaper option. Even if you want to upgrade to 16GB, you can still save money compared to the prior 14” MacBook Pro base spec.
I’m glad we do agree on the Mac as a better option though. 🙂👍🏻
We've somehow arrived at car analogies, but leaving that aside, I will point out once again that Apple's RAM chips are almost assuredly bog-standard components. So the Porsche analogy doesn't quite work there. Apple doesn't contract SG Hynix to do something very-high-quality, because they don't really need to.
Most Mac components are bog-standard. The trackpad is quite unique, I'll admit. Speaker's sound better, but that's mostly not because of the hardware. They do some really neat tricks with (possibly patented) software processing to make them sound good.
A. We don’t know that Apple’s RAM chips are “bog-standard components”. We can only speculate on whether or not Apple possibly custom ordered RAM cards for specific performance parameters. We simply don’t know. They could be standard, but they also could not be. And regardless of whether they’re custom ordered or not, it doesn’t matter for a couple of reasons.
First, you say that because they’re standard RAM chips, this somehow negates the Porsche comparison. Besides the fact that you cannot prove they’re only standard chips, the obvious issue with this reasoning is that not every part in a Porsche is custom-built either. Porsche’s use several generic components as well. It’s some of the parts of a Porsche that are custom-built, just like how the display panels for Apple’s MacBook Pro’s are custom built. So even if we assume your premise that the RAM chips are standard, your claim doesn’t negate the Porsche comparison at all.
Right. My point is that Apple largely doesn't rely on specialized, low-margin contracts. (Perhaps with the exception of the Vision Pro, which has components the competition simply can't afford.) They avoid them where they can, and given that the topic here is RAM, that's one component where specialized stuff is rarely necessary.
Absolutely. Their RAM and storage components are not unique or extraordinary at all. If you look at a tear down video, there's no magic going on. The trackpad, as mentioned, is very good, but Apple aren't otherwise performing magic tricks in there. The SoCs are excellent, though it's not like AMD and Intel make junk that cannot compete in any way. Apple could 100% also make MacBooks more repairable if they wanted to, in a variety of ways, without making a "big, thick, heavy" laptop (as was suggested about 50 pages back).