Apple's M3 Chip: Everything We Know

[ArkSingularity]

Well of course more is more; that is obvious. And of course most folks should buy more than 8 GB RAM. The question is why should Apple force lowest end users (e.g. granny with only email and K-12 administrators) needing absolute least cost to pay more than minimally necessary?

Apple making a decision to upgrade the base models to 12GB isn't going to cause Apple to raise the prices any higher than they already would. RAM is cheap, they sell it at a substantial markup over what they pay for it.

 

[Wowereit]

But not cost any more than the current 8/256 models. 🤔

Well of course more is more; that is obvious. And of course most folks should buy more than 8 GB RAM. The question is why should Apple force lowest end users (e.g. granny with only email and K-12 administrators) needing absolute least cost to pay more than minimally necessary?

I always wonder about delusional takes like this.

You can buy 4 GB of LPDDR5 for $3.20 right now if you take just 1000 chips. That means that Apple is paying $2 at most.

Both RAM and NAND add negligible cost at the quantities used in most consumer electronics. The 8/256 base model only exists to advertise a lower starting price, force you to upgrade earlier or make you buy the next tier for $200 more.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Apple making a decision to upgrade the base models to 12GB isn't going to cause Apple to raise the prices any higher than they already would. RAM is cheap, they sell it at a substantial markup over what they pay for it.

That opinion is common and totally ignorant of how business of necessity works. One way or another component costs like more RAM need to be charged for.

Y'all may wish on Apple throwing in a free upgrade, but do not pretend that there is some kind of magic that gives more RAM for less. At some point inventory management costs may cause Apple to stop offering the current lowest RAM tier, which is when the 8 GB choice will disappear.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

I always wonder about delusional takes like this.

You can buy 4 GB of LPDDR5 for $3.20 right now if you take just 1000 chips. That means that Apple is paying $2 at most.

Both RAM and NAND add negligible cost at the quantities used in most consumer electronics. The 8/256 base model only exists to advertise a lower starting price, force you to upgrade earlier or make you buy the next tier for $200 more.

We do not know Apple's build costs, but finished-product baked-on UMA RAM costs are certainly not what you describe.

 

[ArkSingularity]

That opinion is common and totally ignorant of how business of necessity works. One way or another component costs like more RAM need to be charged for.

Y'all may wish on Apple throwing in a free upgrade, but do not pretend that there is some kind of magic that gives more RAM for less. At some point inventory management costs may cause Apple to stop offering the current lowest RAM tier, which is when the 8 GB choice will disappear.

My dude, RAM has been getting cheaper, not more expensive. The costs to upgrade to 12GB aren't necessarily going to be more expensive than 8GB was in past years. If anything, the costs have been going down, not up.

The same argument could have been made for when Apple upgraded their MacBook Pros from 4GB to 8GB back in 2012 to 2013. Apple could have held on to the "bare minimum" for a few years longer, but they decided to give their customers better longevity in their machines instead (and frankly, it was about the right time to upgrade the base specs, and this was 10 years ago).

 

[Allen_Wentz]

My dude, RAM has been getting cheaper, not more expensive. The costs to upgrade to 12GB aren't necessarily going to be more expensive than 8GB was in past years. If anything, the costs have been going down, not up.

The same argument could have been made for when Apple upgraded their MacBook Pros from 4GB to 8GB back in 2012 to 2013. Apple could have held on to the "bare minimum" for a few years longer, but they decided to give their customers better longevity in their machines instead (and frankly, it was about the right time to upgrade the base specs, and this was 10 years ago).

Do not misunderstand me. I expect that for reasons of tech evolution and inventory management Apple may likely raise their lowest RAM tier above 8 GB soon, since they have already raised the top laptop tier to 96 GB RAM. But IMO that decision should be based on build cost logistics.

My disagreement is with flawed reasoning like that implied by "RAM is cheap, they sell it at a substantial markup over what they pay for it." The point is that cheap or not, RAM is not free. IMO Apple should keep their lowest-end boxes as cheap as possible for lowest-end buyers, and not force prices higher by arbitrarily raising the RAM of least cost boxes. Minimum RAM offered should be based on solid build cost analysis, not the desires of internet wags.

You said: "The same argument could have been made for when Apple upgraded their MacBook Pros from 4GB to 8GB back in 2012 to 2013. Apple could have held on to the "bare minimum" for a few years longer, but they decided to give their customers better longevity in their machines instead (and frankly, it was about the right time to upgrade the base specs, and this was 10 years ago)."

I fully agree with "give their customers better longevity in their machines." IMO one way to do that is to add choices for higher RAM, and Apple has done that with the 96 GB RAM choice (which I purchased BTW).

 

[chucker23n1]

We do not know Apple's build costs,

They’re not gonna spend more than people who order lower quantities, so we know the price ceiling.

I always wonder about delusional takes like this.

You can buy 4 GB of LPDDR5 for $3.20 right now if you take just 1000 chips. That means that Apple is paying $2 at most.

Are you sure you aren’t confusing Gb and GiB here?

Here’s a Micron chip with 4 GiB for ~$50. You might get it down to $40 or so at higher quantities, but not $2.

(Apple uses SK Hynix, for which I can’t easily find pricing.)

 

[ArkSingularity]

Do not misunderstand me. I expect that for reasons of tech evolution and inventory management Apple may likely raise their lowest RAM tier above 8 GB soon, since they have already raised the top laptop tier to 96 GB RAM. But IMO that decision should be based on build cost logistics.

My disagreement is with flawed reasoning like that implied by "RAM is cheap, they sell it at a substantial markup over what they pay for it." The point is that cheap or not, RAM is not free. IMO Apple should keep their lowest-end boxes as cheap as possible for lowest-end buyers, and not force prices higher by arbitrarily raising the RAM of least cost boxes. Minimum RAM offered should be based on solid build cost analysis, not the desires of internet wags.

You said: "The same argument could have been made for when Apple upgraded their MacBook Pros from 4GB to 8GB back in 2012 to 2013. Apple could have held on to the "bare minimum" for a few years longer, but they decided to give their customers better longevity in their machines instead (and frankly, it was about the right time to upgrade the base specs, and this was 10 years ago)."

I fully agree with "give their customers better longevity in their machines." IMO one way to do that is to add choices for higher RAM, and Apple has done that with the 96 GB RAM choice (which I purchased BTW).

Of course RAM is not free, but there comes a point where we have to ask "what should the minimum amount of RAM be" for a machine in this price range. 5-10 years ago, 8GB was generous. Today, casual workloads that would not budge the memory pressure past the green are easily causing it to hit the yellow today. These are now the kinds of workloads that perfectly casual users are going to run, and while that's not the end of the world, these workloads are certainly much more RAM intensive than they used to be in 2012.

These aren't $400 walmart machines, these start at $1000 for the cheapest models. Most PCs in this price range offer 16GB of RAM as the base configuration (and many are even upgradable). If anything, Apple is already offering a lower end base configuration than the rest of the PC industry is right now.

Sooner or later, they will upgrade the base spec, and I don't think that many folks will complain about it when they do (aside from some of the folks who maybe feel like they comparatively have lower end configurations now that the base spec has been upgraded, but that's not a good reason to keep technology held back).

 

[Chuckeee]

As long as a significant portion of the market will buy 8GB machines and it doesn’t cost Apple MORE to make 8GB machines. Apple will keep making 8GB machines.

And “costing more” it isn’t just piece costs but includes a common PCB layout, assembly cost and configuration management.

 

[Tagbert]

I always wonder about delusional takes like this.

You can buy 4 GB of LPDDR5 for $3.20 right now if you take just 1000 chips. That means that Apple is paying $2 at most.

Both RAM and NAND add negligible cost at the quantities used in most consumer electronics. The 8/256 base model only exists to advertise a lower starting price, force you to upgrade earlier or make you buy the next tier for $200 more.

The question is not about the cost of components but the cost to Apple of forgoing the price of the upgrades. If they just include more RAM and Storage, fewer people will spend money on upgrades and Apple’s revenue will drop. Apple would need to address that somehow. One way would be to get people to upgrade to even higher levels. Or they might increase the price of the base models to essentially include all or most of the upgrade price.

 

[Confused-User]

The question is not about the cost of components but the cost to Apple of forgoing the price of the upgrades. If they just include more RAM and Storage, fewer people will spend money on upgrades and Apple’s revenue will drop. Apple would need to address that somehow. One way would be to get people to upgrade to even higher levels. Or they might increase the price of the base models to essentially include all or most of the upgrade price.

Or, they decide that demand is elastic and eating the marginal cost (or lost maginal upgrades from 8GB) will be made up in volume.

If you're looking at sales alone, that would likely make no sense because their margin on RAM and SSD upgrades is so much larger than their margin on the base unit (as a %age). However, pulling more people into their ecosystem boosts subscription revenue, and that complicates things, in favor of boosting the base unit. Enough to get them to do it? No idea.

 

[Lioness~]

That's what Apple wants you to think.

In some respects, the 13" pro is actually inferior to the Air. It has no magsafe/worse IO, smaller screen, worse webcam, thicker design without any extra expandability to come along with it. Same chip/SOC and no ability to support additional monitors above what the Air can already provide.

You do get a fan, better speakers, touchbar, and slightly better battery life. The fan is not a negligible benefit, and is what really sets this machine apart from the Air lineup for a lot of people.

I would seriously consider a MacBook Air w/pro-chip, depending on price difference between a pro and the M3 only chip, of course too.

It would be the best of portable, for me.
Weight is very important for a portable to me. But yes, they are not that much lighter then a 13 MBP, but it surely matters to me when on the go. I also like the MBA design a lot better.
I probably won’t need the pro-chip in a portable 80% of the time, but nevertheless it would be especially great those times I am not at home needing a bit extra cream, or don’t want to take those extra steps to sit down at my Studio when I am into something on my MBA.

I really look forward to the new M3 releases this fall/winter 😁

 

[dante_mr]

Or, they decide that demand is elastic and eating the marginal cost (or lost maginal upgrades from 8GB) will be made up in volume.

If you're looking at sales alone, that would likely make no sense because their margin on RAM and SSD upgrades is so much larger than their margin on the base unit (as a %age). However, pulling more people into their ecosystem boosts subscription revenue, and that complicates things, in favor of boosting the base unit. Enough to get them to do it? No idea.

This is a very good point. And with Apple's--very justifiable given the revenue--focus on services it makes sense to try to pull people into the Apple ecosystem and keep them there.

It's why I wish Apple would try to introduce an even more affordable MacBook somewhere down the line. Akin to the regular iPad which is pretty affordable. Same goes for the iPhone with their SE model. From what I understand it was quite popular and due for an updated version soon.

And to a lesser extent, it's why I hope Apple also gives gaming more attention. I don't know how much this affects their customer acquisition in the grand scheme of things, but Apple's reputation in the gaming community for both hardware and software is awful. And that's even after the transition to Apple Silicon which now allows for very good performance across Apple's entire hardware lineup even at the lowest end devices like base MacBook Air.

Apple could perhaps remedy this by increasing developer support, maybe developing their own line of original IP in the same vain as their streaming efforts, or just straight up convince studios to port over more games like they've been doing already.

 

[kagharaht]

I was hoping the recent announcement would mention iMac M2 or M3. My Late 2013 stuck with Catalina is having some real issues with iCloud support. Hardware seems fine, its the software stuck in Catalina thats causing issues with some iCloud services and synching.I never shut the thing down since its doing Home Sharing services and wake from sleep sometimes crashes it. Really need to get a new iMac.

 

[Warped9]

I was going to buy a Mac Studio with M2 Max but will wait.

I really want a new iMac, but it is dependent on what the M3 iMac will be like. I suspect it will probably satisfy my hopes, but if by some chance it doesn’t then a Mac Studio with M2 Max and Studio Display will be the route I’ll take. I am not waiting another two years for another iMac update.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

When you think about it, the fact they wait for a tipping point like that suggests the specs on these machines are pretty bad considering their premium pricing

Whatever are you talking about, "the specs on these machines are pretty bad" ? An M2 MBP laptop with 96 GB RAM, 8 TB SSD, Thunderbolt 4, WiFi 6E, Bluetooth 5.3, HDMI 2.1, 400 GB/s memory bandwidth, etc. are bad specs? What laptop do you prefer with stronger specs?

 

[Allen_Wentz]

That's what Apple wants you to think.

In some respects, the 13" pro is actually inferior to the Air. It has no magsafe/worse IO, smaller screen, worse webcam, thicker design without any extra expandability to come along with it. Same chip/SOC and no ability to support additional monitors above what the Air can already provide.

You do get a fan, better speakers, touchbar, and slightly better battery life. The fan is not a negligible benefit, and is what really sets this machine apart from the Air lineup for a lot of people.

True enough for the 13", but also add better display (quite a big deal for those with trained eyes/brain) and better speakers to the MBP list.

 

[Aleita]

No one knows for sure that base will be 12GB - pure speculation. 8GB is most likely.

8GB is a shame for 2024 computers .. they are done with 8GB, welcome 12 GB as base model

 

[Lioness~]

Whatever is the base, I will upgrade RAM to next level, which has been 16GB for awhile.
If Apple make the base 12 or 16, I happily upgrade to 24 or 32.
I highly doubt the 16 as base though, but 12 would be one step forward for humanity ☺️

 

[nerven]

base Memory Bandwidth? 200GB/s?

 

[snowfox6]

Honestly, for my use cases, I think the M3 base model chip should be more than enough. However if you are going to spend money, focus on the RAM, I run dozens of applications that are memory intensive and my Ram is always almost exhausted and I have 16GB. So for my next upgrade, I will focus on the RAM, especially if you run any VM applications, you ideally want 64GB of RAM. I feel I would be able to Multi-task the way I want with 64GB of RAM.

 

[shinkansenwarrior]

I’m ready for a M3 16” MacBook Pro. But It seriously needs to come in Midnight.

View attachment 2247788

And in a gorgeous Titanium Scarlet Red.

 

[CSBBody]

I am currently running the Mac Studio Max and MacBook Pro max MI machines.

I do some large audio projects, other than office work, I decide on the day which will carry the load, but with all the new releases of heavy plug ins, trying to run latency free in real time. I am finding even just a few tabs of Edge dev and it’s starting to push both machines.

I am not that tech savvy, so i tend to over compensate, rather than wish I had. As more and more outboard gear, becomes internal, I try take the load off with DSP powdered Audio interface, and other products i use for guitar and piano.

1Tb doesn’t even hold up anymore, its packed, yet all sound libraries are on the fastest external SSD

I hope the M3 helps me find a middle ground rather than maxing out ram and cores of a new Mac Studio and matching MacBook Pro, and an IPad to boot.. However its a lovely luxury not having to micro manage everything.

 

[MorDhona]

Well it's 18th October today, and November is in less than 2 weeks.
I'm guessing Apple will release the first MacBook M3 (Air/Pro) models soon.

MacBook Air M3 specs:
Apple M3, performance above and beyond AMD EPYC 9654
CPU cores: 4 x Snowstorm performance cores @ 4,8 GHz,
4 x Rainstorm efficiency cores @ 2,8 GHz (8 cores total)
GPU cores: 12-core Apple GPU
RAM: 12 GB or 24 GB
Battery: 20+ hours on a full charge
Storage: 512 GB and 1 TB
OS: macOS Sonoma
Screen: 13.8" P3 Retina True Tone 2560 × 1600 native resolution
Fanless design: Yes, with aluminum heat spreader
Starting price: $1299

MacBook Pro M3 specs:
Apple M3, performance above and beyond AMD EPYC 9654P
CPU cores: 4 x Snowstorm performance cores @ 4,8 GHz,
4 x Rainstorm efficiency cores @ 2,8 GHz (8 cores total)
GPU cores: 12-core Apple GPU
RAM: 24 or 48 GB
Battery: 24+ hours on a full charge
Storage: 1 TB, 2 TB, 4 TB, and 8 TB
OS: macOS Sonoma
Screen: 13.8" P3 Retina True Tone 2560 × 1600 native resolution
Fanless design: No, single fan included with aluminum heat spreader
Starting price: $1499

 

[MorDhona]

Well it's 18th October today, and November is in less than 2 weeks.
I'm guessing Apple will release the first MacBook M3 (Air/Pro) models soon.

MacBook Air M3 specs:
Apple M3, performance above and beyond AMD EPYC 9654
CPU cores: 4 x Snowstorm performance cores @ 4,8 GHz,
4 x Rainstorm efficiency cores @ 2,8 GHz (8 cores total)
GPU cores: 12-core Apple GPU
RAM: 12 GB or 24 GB
Battery: 20+ hours on a full charge
Storage: 512 GB and 1 TB
OS: macOS Sonoma
Screen: 13.8" P3 Retina True Tone 2560 × 1600 native resolution
Fanless design: Yes, with aluminum heat spreader
Starting price: $1299

MacBook Pro M3 specs:
Apple M3, performance above and beyond AMD EPYC 9654P
CPU cores: 4 x Snowstorm performance cores @ 4,8 GHz,
4 x Rainstorm efficiency cores @ 2,8 GHz (8 cores total)
GPU cores: 12-core Apple GPU
RAM: 24 or 48 GB
Battery: 24+ hours on a full charge
Storage: 1 TB, 2 TB, 4 TB, and 8 TB
OS: macOS Sonoma
Screen: 13.8" P3 Retina True Tone 2560 × 1600 native resolution
Fanless design: No, single fan included with aluminum heat spreader
Starting price: $1499

I want to add that Apple's event may start at October 30th. Just guessing.