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.
Apple is not going to stop starting at 8GB anytime soon. And that's good.
- Thread starter mrmister
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But that is just the point. As a typical consumer, I am very happy with the performance of my base M2 MBA. I would never notice additional RAM using the computer the way I do. Will I notice if Safari loads 1/1000th of a second faster? Will iWork or MS Office operate noticeably different? Will streaming be better? Why is that some people insist they know what specs I need when they don't know how I use my computer? If you gave me a maxed out M3 MBP with all the RAM Apple can stuff in it, I would never notice the difference in performance.
Frankly, the insanely great M2 battery life is something I notice more than all of this other stuff.
We are not your typical consumers though just being members of this site. We all come here to be informed. Comparisons like these inform us on how to get the most bang for your buck / longevity out of these expensive devices. The M2 is still a very new product…but as time goes on that 8GB won’t age well. With laptops especially it’s all about spending your thousands correctly as they are meant to be used for years, not swapped every 1-2 years. If these results are showing now, it’s concerning for the near future. RAM is not something I would risk given the lack of ability to user upgrade it down the road. It’s always advisable to purchase as much as you can afford. The base models are Apple’s way of getting people to buy up into more expensive models, nothing more. The base M3 MBP is no more “Pro” than an M2 Air outside of the display.
The vast majority of computer users (i.e. those not on this or any other similar forum) are using their computers for basic tasks such as email, web browsing, basic productivity tasks, and streaming audio and/or video. 8GB of RAM has been more than enough for those users and will continue to be until the OS itself (whether Mac OS or Windows or even a version of Linux) require more than that just to get to the desktop. At least Apple doesn't sell barebones models with only 4GB of RAM like many PC vendors do (HP and Lenovo being the worst offenders on that front).
I think the real issue is that Apple is charging more per a GB for the M3 option when compared to the M3 Pro and M3 Max options.
14in MBP M3 Base
Starts with 8GB
Go to 16GB $200 ($25 per GB)
Go to 24GB $400 ($25 per GB)
14in MBP M3 Pro Base
Starts with 18GB
Go to 36GB $400 ($22 per GB)
14in MBP M3 Max 14 core CPU
Starts with 36GB
Go to 96GB $800 ($13.33 per GB)
14in MBP M3 Max 16 core CPU
Starts with 48GB
Go to 64GB $200 ($12.50 per GB)
Go to 128GB $1000 ($12.50 per GB)
If Apple charged $12.50 per GB in the M3 variant, it would be $100 to go to 16GB and $200 to go to 24GB.
14in MBP M3 Base
Starts with 8GB
Go to 16GB $200 ($25 per GB)
Go to 24GB $400 ($25 per GB)
14in MBP M3 Pro Base
Starts with 18GB
Go to 36GB $400 ($22 per GB)
14in MBP M3 Max 14 core CPU
Starts with 36GB
Go to 96GB $800 ($13.33 per GB)
14in MBP M3 Max 16 core CPU
Starts with 48GB
Go to 64GB $200 ($12.50 per GB)
Go to 128GB $1000 ($12.50 per GB)
If Apple charged $12.50 per GB in the M3 variant, it would be $100 to go to 16GB and $200 to go to 24GB.
Unfortunately that old Photoshop won't run on this new MacBook Pro. It'd be cool if we could use apps from 15 year ago on modern hardware, but in general that's not possible in MacOS. It's more possible in Windows, but even then, if you want to run old software then get old hardware and skip the unnecessary expense / headache that comes with making two things work with each other that weren't designed to work with each other.
I actually still use a Thinkpad T60 from time to time. Has 3GB of RAM and (much to my surprise) it's not incapable of handling the modern web (though it's certainly not fast).
Who is arguing that "nothing will run on 8 GB RAM"? I see mainly that people are upset about the value proposition. Recommending older used Macs with 8 GB is fine, but to recommend someone spends $1600 on a use case so basic that a Mac from a decade ago will suffice? I don't feel comfortable making such a recommendation.
YOU WOULD.
Have you ever considered that there are people who are not like you?
I know people who never keep safari tabs open, who only ever have a maximum of 2 or 3 windows/tabs open, and close them as soon as they are done. Non-computer people DO NOT ALWAYS USE THEIR MACS THE WAY WE DO!!!
But, like I keep saying, this is not a debate about money, it's a debate about social control. Some people just refuse to believe that other people are different from them, and want to FORCE everyone to behave like they behave. They take the existence of difference as a personal insult...
It's called freedom. Apple should be allowed to make and sell those products they want with almost no restrictions.
The same way potential customers should be allowed the freedom not to buy products they don't want.
Some people just in this thread say that Safari will choke on 8Gb of RAM easily.
The argument for 8Gb of RAM is not that it's better or even 100% equal in every way to 16Gb of RAM. The argument we make is that the improvements for certain users aren't noticeable by them or aren't worth the extra cost.
If they can get their work done with a cheaper Mac, it might be worth it to someone.
Microsoft Office is probably the most used professional software. Yet, we don't see comparison between writing a Word document or scheduling a meeting in Outlook when they compare different models or between new and old.
What a load of baloney. Social control? This is simply about technical capabilities and value in personal computers. A 14" laptop that works best with only a few programs and tabs open should not cost $1600. Apple is the one who set the precedent that Macbook Pros should be more capable than Macbook Airs. If Apple wants to disregard that distinction the least they could do is price it accordingly.
I think this is getting to be pointless, since you seem to be unable to accept different user requirements and buying preferences. The base M2 MBA (8GB) is already 1.5 y.o., and I have no desire to sell it, so this idea of trading it every 1-2 years is ridiculous. BTW - the base M2 MBA model does not cost thousands of dollars.....it can be purchased on sale for $899. So, you might have a laptop that costs thousands of dollars, but that's not what the average user is buying. Again, you are projecting your requirements for an expensive computer on the needs and purchasing decisions of others. I have been buying base configured MBAs for my family for years. Typically, we get 5-7 years out of them. Even if Apple sold the additional RAM at cost ($50), which is very unlikely, it might not be worth it to millions of typical consumers because they wouldn't notice the difference in their day to day use.
Now, I understand that the MBP is being marketed to users with more demanding requirements, and you could make an argument that they should have started at 16GB for those models. But, apparently, Apple believes there is a market for this base MBP configuration. Time will tell if their market research is correct.
Gee. I wonder why someone might look at the statement I bolded and conclude that the person making the statement is very big on social control?
The only person here concerned with social control is the one who's trying to police conversations about the relative value of personal laptops.
Social control? That sounds like a red herring.
I like your technical posts, but in this case, the problem is Apple shipping a "Pro" computer with 8GB of memory that will demonstrably bog down as a user multi-tasks. If a buyer tries to put this "Pro" through its paces or taxes the machine too greatly, they'll be disappointed. I'd advise anyone that wants more than browsing/email/etc - doing just about any benchmark-able task - away from the base model.
We can agree that some people are fine with an 8/256 laptop and that some would be more than happy with those specs over the life of their machine. Grandmas and grandpas rejoice. For those users, there's a base Air, iMac, or if they want a nice screen, they can even buy a Pro.
The big issue, without any concern for social control, is that Apple marketing is misleading the public by calling this device a "Pro" and implying it's great for pro workloads, especially when introducing it an event headlined "scary fast" with their execs telling customers they should look at 8GB as 16GB. If someone doesn't know of this, arguably, severe limitation, they might buy this machine and regret it. As it is, these machines will probably wind up in a landfill years short of their potential.
Apple can charge whatever they want and spec machines however they want. If they're too lopsided on upgrade pricing, they'll deserve to get pilloried by the macrumors crowd. That's par for the course! That's your Apple Tax.
This is worse.
Last edited:
Hmm. 🤔 It’s good for me and everyone who already owns an M1/8GB/256GB Mac. But I wouldn’t say it’s generally good for everyone.
Yes, there is a benefit to force developers to consider a certain base-configuration and not expect that growing capabilities will always make up for their wasteful use of computing resources. But there are also a lot of people, who would benefit from a 12 GB minimum RAM configuration going forward.
It all depends on, if you’re in the market to buy an entry-level Mac in the near future or not. Some people expected to make a way better deal waiting for the M3. But all updates are incremental, only transitions from one chip architecture to another are revolutionary. For the next 10 years Macs will only improve incrementally.
You’ve got to skip a few generations to make a huge step. The real deal are new form factors like the upcoming 32" iMac. 🖥️ #istillbelieve
Yes, there is a benefit to force developers to consider a certain base-configuration and not expect that growing capabilities will always make up for their wasteful use of computing resources. But there are also a lot of people, who would benefit from a 12 GB minimum RAM configuration going forward.
It all depends on, if you’re in the market to buy an entry-level Mac in the near future or not. Some people expected to make a way better deal waiting for the M3. But all updates are incremental, only transitions from one chip architecture to another are revolutionary. For the next 10 years Macs will only improve incrementally.
You’ve got to skip a few generations to make a huge step. The real deal are new form factors like the upcoming 32" iMac. 🖥️ #istillbelieve
1. The business I work for and the two non-profits I volunteer for.
2. Many disagree that "it's still worth it."
Ah, the infamous "many". Meaning you and your circle of people.
Either way, as much as I agree 16Gb should be base on MBPs, Mac laptops are the best in the industry.
As cheap as ram actually cost, there is no excuse for Apple not to either lower the cost of ram upgrades or increase the base amount of ram.
I don’t give a **** about Apple’s bottom line. I vote with my dollars, and they won’t get my money until they change the above.
I am sick of you shareholders and Apple shills defending Apple. They don’t deserve it.
They have low MacBook sales but don’t change this nonsense, thus they deserve the low sales.
Their sales could increase by so much to offset the small amount of ram cost it’s bs
I don’t give a **** about Apple’s bottom line. I vote with my dollars, and they won’t get my money until they change the above.
I am sick of you shareholders and Apple shills defending Apple. They don’t deserve it.
They have low MacBook sales but don’t change this nonsense, thus they deserve the low sales.
Their sales could increase by so much to offset the small amount of ram cost it’s bs
Uh....everyone on this site is saying you can't do anything with 8GB....16GB should be standard as you can't even browse the internet with 8GB of RAM.
With this mindset if Apple sold machines with 4GB of RAM you will be happy about it insofar it’s “getting the job done” barely. Wake-up its almost 2024 time to keep up with the rest of the industry and make 16GB the new entry standard just as Apple was inclined previously to make 8GB the entry standard.
Low RAM equals multiple page swaps leading to wear on the SSD. Thus shortening its lifespan to upgrade sooner as the SSD is not user replaceable.
Citation required...
The fact that this has been repeated ad nauseum since the first MacBook Air's with an SSD still does not make it true.
Evidence, or ****.
There are lots of videos showing how light of a workload already results in using the SSD storage for memory.
The SSDs are non-replaceable and their failure means a logic board failure (has to be replaced entirely). SSDs have a limited lifespan of write cycles.
None of this is even contestable. The only question is whether or not it causes a device failure ahead of the end of its useful life. 8GB non-upgradeable RAM starving the device at new in 2024, maybe the whole device will be simply too slow before the SSD fails. Could only take a couple of years anyways. How else is Apple going to convince people to hand over another $2K three years from now? They love nothing more than people who don't have a clue what's going on.
I suspect only Apple has the data on why logic boards fail, if anyone. When the board on my 2020 5k iMac 8GB failed, Apple didn't say why, they just replaced the whole thing. I since tossed in 32 GB for $75 so hopefully it'll be fine for the rest of the decade that it will be good for.