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.
How can Apple sell a Mac with 8GB of RAM in 2023 and call it "Pro"
- Thread starter parseckadet
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't build trash PC's like that
Apple has a memory problem and we’re all paying for it Apple still sells expensive "Pro" computers with just 8GB of RAM and charges a fortune for more.
Yes, the press getting into this will hopefully get us some change in the next 5 years as we're still using poverty spec from 10 years ago.
I did some testing recently to see how far I could push low memory conditions on Mac OS. These tests were performed on a VM running Sonoma Beta, and were all performed with the memory at or below the minimum required specifications:
(Control: 8GB VM with same settings on a 16GB M2 Pro host machine. At boot: 3.24GB mem usage, 0MB compressed, 0MB swap.)
4GB:
- Performed pretty much indistinguishably for what I'd call a light "everyday workload". Multiple browser tabs, several other light apps open at once. No noticeable slowdowns, system remained snappy for the tests I ran. Green memory pressure at boot (2.28GB memory usage, 164MB compressed, 0MB swap)
3GB:
- Similar to 4GB, performed reasonably well for light everyday usage (though apps would take a few seconds longer to launch if other apps were already open). Yellow memory pressure at boot (1.75GB memory usage, 200MB compressed, 0MB swap)
2GB:
- Web browser still performed better than expected when nothing else was running. Multitasking performance was significantly worse than on 3GB, but the system didn't freeze up or become unresponsive. Yellow memory pressure at boot (1.3GB memory usage, 335MB compressed, 33MB swap).
1280MB:
- Lowest spec I was able to get the system to boot on. Browser was very slow to open, although websites themselves still loaded fairly quickly once the browser was running. System was nearly unusuable for any other multitasking of any kind.
So it does appear (based on the testing above) that there is some truth to the idea that Mac OS will use more memory if more RAM is available. This appears to go beyond just "cached memory" in Activity monitor (Mac OS and various running applications are actually using more active memory on systems with more RAM installed).
(Control: 8GB VM with same settings on a 16GB M2 Pro host machine. At boot: 3.24GB mem usage, 0MB compressed, 0MB swap.)
4GB:
- Performed pretty much indistinguishably for what I'd call a light "everyday workload". Multiple browser tabs, several other light apps open at once. No noticeable slowdowns, system remained snappy for the tests I ran. Green memory pressure at boot (2.28GB memory usage, 164MB compressed, 0MB swap)
3GB:
- Similar to 4GB, performed reasonably well for light everyday usage (though apps would take a few seconds longer to launch if other apps were already open). Yellow memory pressure at boot (1.75GB memory usage, 200MB compressed, 0MB swap)
2GB:
- Web browser still performed better than expected when nothing else was running. Multitasking performance was significantly worse than on 3GB, but the system didn't freeze up or become unresponsive. Yellow memory pressure at boot (1.3GB memory usage, 335MB compressed, 33MB swap).
1280MB:
- Lowest spec I was able to get the system to boot on. Browser was very slow to open, although websites themselves still loaded fairly quickly once the browser was running. System was nearly unusuable for any other multitasking of any kind.
So it does appear (based on the testing above) that there is some truth to the idea that Mac OS will use more memory if more RAM is available. This appears to go beyond just "cached memory" in Activity monitor (Mac OS and various running applications are actually using more active memory on systems with more RAM installed).
Last edited:
Quick check with MacTracker and the 13-inch MacBook Pro (Early 2013) had 8 GB on-board memory and that's also the maximum configuration, you couldn't upgrade it at all. You had to buy the 15-inch MacBook Pro for $2,199 and then pay extra for 16 GB RAM. Glorious! 😂
EDIT: But wait, it gets better. The 13-inch MacBook Pro (Late 2013) came in 4, 8 and 16 GB variants! So 8 GB is a mid-tier spec from 10 years ago. 😆
Yes, Apple was being stingey with RAM on base models back then, too. Thanks for reminding us!
Upgrading from 4 to 8 GB on my 2010 17" MBP easily doubled the useful life of that machine -- it still runs incredibly well on Linux and Windows, just not macoS. It's a shame you can't upgrade anymore.
Apple benefits greatly from using the 8GB model as a base. Either users recognize this is low for anything but light duties (in which case, why even buy a new one?) so they'll end up upgrading every couple of years, or they'll pay the upgrade tax and put big cash in Apple's coffers. The extra wear on the non-replaceable SSD may not be noticeable to user but it definitely accelerates it.
Apple does have a history of relying on and even encouraging users to not think about or worry about things like tech specs.... well, until they make a component inconsequentially faster, in which case we're all made well aware of it. It's the endless dichotomy of "it's so powerful and ahead of its time and all competition!" and "it's fine/adequate/sufficient for little old ladies to check their email once a week".
Because 10 years of x86 heat also wear down a Mac to the point of un-repairability. Also eventually you do want to upgrade to a Retina screen and ARM-based SoC, higher bandwidth, faster SSD, USB-C ports etc.
Do you have any data to suggest that 8 GB Mac owners upgrade more often than 16 GB Mac owners? It's probably the other way around. People who fall for upgrades also fall for minor year-on-year improvements.
An unnoticeable acceleration of the wear on the SSD. That's a correct description of the downsides of using Swap memory on an 8 GB Mac. And if you really want to spend $200 to avoid this fate, you can do it.
Which is good, because it only leads to meaningless spec-races, which don't really improve the usability.
If you believe, it is all just marketing and there's nothing desirable of what Apple has to offer, you wouldn't be here and complain about the price.
There is actually a noticeable distinction between consumer and professional Macs, with some prosumer Macs in between. Apple offers real compute power and devices for the elderly. Some in pink for the ladies and some colorful for the kids and apparently space black is a "pro-color" for real proles.
These things literally cost less than an Apple keyboard for iPad! How much memory does the iPad keyboard have? What's the CPU on that? Screen size?
You guys are hilarious
Heat does kill Intel Macs, especially the macbook Pro's with discrete GPU's. Every single DGPU macbook pro that I've had had their GPU's fail from heat, needing an expensive >$700 logic board replacement. (2008, 2010, 2012, 2016, and 2019 - a mix of AMD/Nvidia failures!)The integrated GPU models did fine however and I expect the same from AS.
6 separate replies to my 1 post, and nothing really addressed. While there are certainly those willing to spend copius amounts of time spamming posts in defence of one of the richest tech companies to ever exist for being stingey, I am glad to see the tech reviewers (even the pro-Apple ones) and the average consumer are bringing up this topic.
Hopefully it will provide consumers with helpful buying advice -- something Apple really doesn't seem to like when they can pretend they're selling premium products that have a major bottleneck.
And the Macworld writer doesn't understand that macOS should try to use close to 100% of the RAM all the time. You shouldn't have any physical memory free at all.
Using 11Gb of memory on 16 Gb MacBook Air is fine. The applications would use less on a 8Gb Mac, and swap would take care of the rest.
We'll be waiting for a long time)))) The company doesn't add all sorts of USB ports, but here there's 8GB of memory - generosity knows no bounds!
Ummm. Exactly? Avoiding swap is the whole idea...
My (work issued) 8GB RAM model choked hard, to the point where I wanted to throw it against a wall - several times a day.
Eventually I gave up, bought myself a 16GB version - and never looked back.
And what was the 'pro' use that killed the user experience?? Chrome. Just tabs in Chrome, plus a few other apps open (Preview, Pages, Chat, Spark). Hardly anything 'hardcore'.
The 16GB version though? Eats it for breakfast, without breaking a sweat.
8GB is a joke.
It is the richest tech company that ever was in all history of mankind. So you can't deny that they must do something right. I'm not defending, I'm explaining to you, not just how − but why Apple pricing works.
Every Apple product that ends with the suffix Pro or Ultra is meant for only two groups of customers. There are the filthy rich people, who need to reassure themselves of their enormous wealth by carrying a few grams of titanium with them in their phones. And then there are professionals, who buy computers as tools to make money. To them a Mac is worth as much as a pickaxe to a gold digger amid a gold rush.
Both groups have in common that they don't care about the price at all and pay what is asked for the bottom-right config. They finance Apple's insane profits and enable them to invest in technologies we mere mortals can enjoy in Apple's consumer line of products.
In economics demand from people who don't have enough money to pay the asking price doesn't count for anything. You're not a 16 GB Mac customer, unless you've paid your $200 extra. Whining won't make Apple lower their prices, as they are already wildly successful with this pricing strategy.
On the contrary, other companies are copying Apple's marketing model and you better teach them, that they aren't Apple and their crap isn't worth a premium. Where is the price appropriate value in a Samsung flagship phone or a Microsoft Surface tablet? Because I can show you exactly why someone might want to pay much more for a MacBook Max than a MacBook Air.
Lol, MacRumors are right because Apple just said the same thing.
8GB RAM on Mac = 16 GB RAM on PC according to Apple also.
Who would have thought?
What if, we don’t rename the MacBook Pro? A product name which exists since 2006. What if instead we rename 8 GB of RAM and call it one AU (Apple Unit) of remember berries.
MacBook Pro
8-core M3 with 1, 2 or 3 AU
12-core M3 Pro with 2¼ or 4½ AU
14-core M3 Max with 4½ or 12 AU
16-core M3 Max with 6, 8 or 16 AU
This way no one can complain. 😁
MacBook Pro
8-core M3 with 1, 2 or 3 AU
12-core M3 Pro with 2¼ or 4½ AU
14-core M3 Max with 4½ or 12 AU
16-core M3 Max with 6, 8 or 16 AU
This way no one can complain. 😁
Not everyone can handle 8 Gb of RAM and for those Apple provides more. For a steep price. Look at it as punishment for not being able to handle 8Gb of memory.
Avoiding swap is not the whole idea. It's because of the aggressive swapping and pre-emptive swapping that 8Gb works for a lot of users on Apple Silicon Macs.
I have used a M1 8Gb MacBook Air with Parallel and Windows 11 virtual machine, Safari, Office including Outlook, Teams, Microsoft RDP, Mail & Calendar, Photos, iMovie, Preview, Maps, Notes, iMessage without any problems.
All at the sometime? No but using the Windows VM with Safari, Outlook, Teams, Excel, Mail, Calendar, Notes, iMessage and Preview at the same time works fine and the Activity Monitor only barely became yellow.
So, why do you care how much Apple makes on your purchases?
Shouldn't you be concerned only about the value a new Mac provides you and if that value is worth what Apple is charging for it?
If you start caring about company profits, it's a recipe for unhappiness. And you don't come across as very happy.
Wow - There's only one way to interpret those results. Nobody should be selling (or buying) an 8GB "Pro" device. I guess entry-level pros don't mutli-task.
Apple is literally crufting up E-Waste with every 4GB module they solder into that "pro" SOC. Apple might be maximizing the value to stakeholders who own their stock, but with these decisions, they're killing the value to stakeholders that use their products, as well as the environment.
It makes one root for alternatives. It makes my fanboy-ism skin deep. Let's go Qualcomm/Samsung, Linux/(and sure, MS), and let's go EU on suing to open up iMessage.
Last edited:
Please stop defending apple on their 8GB decission !
and please stop proposing that 8GB is enough.
And it definitly does NOT deserve to be taged "Pro" !
edit: sorry, late to the party :lol:
watch:
plus: your next 2nd hand buyer might be happy for NOT having just 8GBs of RAM.
With only 8GB, this things will land earlier in the garbage can.
Which works entirely AGAINST apples "we are green" claim !
8GB of Ram IS ridiculous.
/ Rant
and please stop proposing that 8GB is enough.
And it definitly does NOT deserve to be taged "Pro" !
edit: sorry, late to the party :lol:
watch:
plus: your next 2nd hand buyer might be happy for NOT having just 8GBs of RAM.
With only 8GB, this things will land earlier in the garbage can.
Which works entirely AGAINST apples "we are green" claim !
8GB of Ram IS ridiculous.
/ Rant
Ouch…but let the Apple apologists just point out that you just need to close your browser tabs when exporting photos. Of course your 2000 euro laptop would be struggling…Against last years processor (by a large margin!). And this is not even accounting when having two screens open with several apps open at the same time.
Last edited:
Apparently they have problems with mathematics, since they can’t count. 8 GB will remain the same. 16GB is 16GB, etc. And they will not be equal. Not only the amount of memory changes, but also the voltage, data transfer speed, etc. You can declare anything, you can also write a lot of things on the fence. It all depends on software optimization.
Apple increased the RAM for the M3 from 16 to 24 GB. Your entire complaint is: If I buy less than what I need, then I don’t have enough.
And…Apple are wrong to let anybody buy less than I need. Even though it may be enough for other people.