There's a lot. RAM right now is dirt cheap unless you're buying from Apple. You can get something like a Beelink GTR5 with 32GB RAM, 500GB SSD and Ryzen 9 5900HX for $640. Similar multi-core Geekbench score to the M2, similar mini-PC form factor. You can get mini-PCs with 16GB of RAM/500GB for $300 on Amazon even with decent Ryzen 5 processors. It costs more just to bump the M2 mini to 16GB/500GB SSD!
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.
I refuse to buy an Apple Silicon Mac with only 8 GB RAM!
- Thread starter AlixSPQR
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But that is socketed RAM?
Unified ram is completely different. I understand that RAM as a whole is cheap right now and there is faster ddr5 ram available but none of it is unified.
Yes Apple ram is expensive but so is soldered RAM offered by other OEMs like dell in XPS line and Lenovo in Thinkpad line.
I am not justifying Apple prices but just being realistic. They are not as crazy expensive as everyone makes them out to be.
It's not completely different. All unified memory means is the CPU/GPU share the same RAM pool. PS5 and Xbox Series X also have unified memory, 16GB worth and cost less than an M2 mini. Same with the Steam Deck.
From the aspect of how the ram is connected to the CPU it is completely different than other systems on the market.
It has a different optical fabric connection allowing for much higher bandwidth than socketed ram so yes it is completely different. Intel and AMD have been working on such interconnected fabrics of there own but have yet to produce the same bandwidth with socketed ram.
Understanding Apple’s Unified Memory Architecture
Apple has just announced improvements to its Unified Memory Architecture, but what the devil is it? Jeff Butts breaks down how UMA helps.
www.macobserver.com
Xbox and Steam are not relevant comparisons IMHO.
Last edited:
We are well passed the point that 8GB is a viable minimum for a computer expected to last hopefully at least another 5 years.
Apple are just creaming the profit from upgrades on ram (£200 for 16GB ?? Really ?) - same for storage (256GB is a poor minimum).
Always the way with Apple though … the base products in a range are always compromised. Add reasonable memory and storage and it’s another £400.
Yet (example) the Dell XPS (or whatever machine) probably costs less than the equivalent MacBook Air/Pro to begin with and comes with 16/512GB storage by default.
Apple are just creaming the profit from upgrades on ram (£200 for 16GB ?? Really ?) - same for storage (256GB is a poor minimum).
Always the way with Apple though … the base products in a range are always compromised. Add reasonable memory and storage and it’s another £400.
Yet (example) the Dell XPS (or whatever machine) probably costs less than the equivalent MacBook Air/Pro to begin with and comes with 16/512GB storage by default.
That is actually not true.
XPS 13 Laptop - Dell XPS 13-inch Laptop Computers | Dell United States
Shop the thinnest & lightest 13-inch XPS laptop featuring a vibrant display & everyday performance, or view all XPS laptops at Dell.com.
www.dell.com
Many XPS systems come with 8gb ram and up until recently the surface laptops only came with 128gb storage and 8gb ram on a Surface laptop 4 that started at $999.
A surface laptop 5 still starts with only 8gb ram.
So it is a common industry wide practice.
I think the bigger question is why do operating systems not only add features but get more efficient with ram use? Why do we have 8gb ram as a base when at one time 512mb of ram was a lot?
I understand that there are more graphics and other things but the fact is that instead of writing better code they just add more and more code and bloat the system which requires more RAM.
As consumers we should be getting more efficient operating systems not just throwing more and more ram at the problem.
Also the idea that any base model device should last for 5 years or more is unrealistic. The pace of technology moves so fast in 5 years a CPU is practically obsolete. If you get a base model device it should last 3 years no problem and to expect more is unrealistic.
If you have a problem with designed obsolescence then you need to look at much bigger issues like consumerism and predatory capitalism.
Many CPUs, including the M1, can last well over 5 years and are definitely not obsolte. My i7-4770 will soon been 10 year old and it's still perfectly fine for my main desktop (no video editing or other CPU intensive tasks, but I do need the 32GB RAM of my system for my usage). The bottleneck of Mac base models is much more RAM and storage than CPU power since Apple Silicon...
I never said it couldn't be used but everyone has their own tolerance level in terms of speed and features. Your i7 is obsolete by Intel and Windows standards. Try installing Windows 11 on it? You can't. Anything older than 8th gen is not supported. So if you don't mind not being able to use the latest release of Windows or certain features that is great but I would consider lack of OS support obsolete.
In terms of M1 it probably will last over 5 years but it will start to lack certain features which might put it into obsolete territory. We don't know yet since it is not that old.
My point is base model machines are not meant to last for a very long term in general. They are met to provide a decent experience as cheap as possible for a short to medium term. Any expectation otherwise would be unrealistic.
Even in your example you i7 with 32gb ram is not a base model machine but an i3 with 4gb would be 10 years ago. Try using an i3 from 10 years ago with 4gb ram and see how fun that is?
I have zero interest in having Windows 11 at this point. I have it in another machine (Surface Book) and hate it. I'll stick to Windows 10 till the last day, hoping that by then W11 has improved enough. I can only tolerate it in Parallels since it's not the main OS.
Having said that, my I7 is pretty snappy and even compared to my M1 Mini, it's absolutely fine. I can't say the same for my dual core laptops, including newer 6th and 7th gen ones. It didn't come with 32 GB RAM. I upgraded it to it, because Windows desktops were upgradable back then (and mostly still are) contrary to AS Macs... And absolutely, it's not a base model, and I agree with your point about base models not being future proof, but it's the "why" we may not agree on.
My point was, and stands, that since Apple Silicon, base models are much more bottlenecked by their non upgradable RAM and storage configurations than by CPU power (storage to a lesser extent since you can still use external storage, although it can be less convenient). And the same machine with more RAM (and storage) can last quite a bit longer, so again the point I have issues with is not that base models are not future proof, it's "The pace of technology moves so fast in 5 years a CPU is practically obsolete". That is simply not (always) true (and it definitely no longer is in the case of Macs), regardeless of how you can spin it to justify that argument.
Amen to that. No one is paying me to use Windows anymore and that's fine with me.
So your argument is because the CPU is more capable on a base model device that the rest of the specs should match it even though a base machine is the lowest configuration offered??
To put it another way since Apple doesn't divide up their CPU line like Intel into i3, i5 and i7 you are getting a better CPU regardless of the specification you get which is an advantage to the user.
If a buyer doesn't care to add additional specs like more ram and SSD even though they know they can't upgrade it later that is somehow Apple's fault? Although most other OEM's offer similar base configurations? In order to be competitive Apple would just have to increase the base specs regardless of cost to production?
If you want to future proof which IMHO is a fools errand then you need to add specs to the base configuration no matter what device you buy from a laptop to a tablet to phone.
The point is not whether you like Windows 11 or not it is you having a choice of whether you want to use it or not and having the latest OS a vendor sells.
In other words if you buy a base model you don't expect to keep for as long because you know you have bottlenecked the device by not buying more RAM and SSD. You either save money now and spend money in a few years or spend more money now. The better cpu is a benefit to all users regardless of price point and should be seen as such and not a justification for apple to provide better specs to the end user and not charge for it?
The point is not whether or not you like Windows 11 or not but being able to upgrade to it if you chose to do so and having the latest OS by said vendor, something you can't do even if you wanted to on your processor. It is by definition obsolete since upgrading is a restriction by Microsoft with your processor being older than 8th gen.
No, my point is very clear and can be easily read and understood in what I wrote, regardless of how you try to turn it around to suit yours. Nothing else to add.
The entry level 14" M1 Pro MBP and 16" M1 Pro MBP had 16gb as the default at the time you posted.
And now the entry level 14" M2 Pro MBP, 16" M2 Pro MBP, and M2 Pro Mac Mini all come with 16gb as the default also.
You have said the same thing twice but not refuted any of what I have said?
I am not trying to turn anything around.
I stand by my statement that in 5 years a current CPU will be obsolete. Whether it can still be used is another point entirely.
The pace of technology is only accelerating not slowing down. I would hate to use a base model Mac or Windows laptop in 5 years and you made a comparison based on your own equipment which is far away from a base configuration. So I don't know what I am missing or turning around?
I am sure a M2 MBP with 64gb or 96gb ram will be great in 5 years but a M1 MBA 5 years after launch with 8gb ram not so much. And it is not just the RAM or SSD but the entire package.
Also please tell me what brand new current 12 gen Intel/AMD Ryzen 6th gen or later non gaming laptops don't have soldered RAM? At Best you can upgrade the SSD but even that is changing.
Last edited:
It’s starting to feel like the best strategy is to buy the cheapest model (if you can get away with those specs) and buy the updated model when it’s released and sell the old one on eBay. 256GB is really not a lot, how much space is a vanilla Ventura install? I think 16GB RAM should be the minimum spec now, they should double the storage too for the cheapest model.
You make a lot of easily checkable assumptions about the computer market.
There's still plenty of new non-gaming laptops with replaceable RAM. ThinkPad P15v Gen 3 for example. Framework is another, System 76 has several etc. And I think we are likely to see the return of replaceable RAM in other consumer models with the acceptance of the new CAMM RAM standard which allows for thinner devices and easier board design than SO-DIMM slots. Most PCs use M.2 socketed storage. I haven't seen any evidence of that changing.
There's also nothing magic about the memory chips Apple uses. They are just soldered in a different spot. People have already replaced them (admittedly it's not easy).
By your logic anything that is not the latest and greatest CPU is obsolete as soon as you feel that it's not good enough for you. So feel free to set arbitrary deadlines by which a CPU is obsolete. Meanwhile other people will happily use their "obsolete" CPU well past that arbitrary threshold you set, provided they have upgradable devices or that they have chosen a decent amount of RAM and (to some extent) storage at purchase, instead of bottlenecking themselves with a low amount of soldered RAM.
And mind you, I have never talked about laptops in my posts, I was talking about desktops (read again).
You contradict yourself by saying that "I stand by my statement that in 5 years a current CPU will be obsolete." but than saying that "I am sure a M2 MBP with 64gb or 96gb ram will be great in 5 years" which is precisely the point I was making, and then adding " but a M1 MBA 5 years after launch with 8gb ram not so much" which again it's because of RAM, not because M1 will not be capable in 2025 for someone for whom it was in 2020 (unless their needs have changed). And using extreme examples of RAM like you do does not change the point.
Not just casual users! I know a business that is still using a 2GB old Mac for photography processing. My 2010 Mac Pro is still in my workflow and it’s at 8GB. No issues with it. Even have an older photoshop on it for some graphics work.
Agreed. I mean just look around! It’s VERY easy to find a Dell, Lenovo or HP etc that still has 8GB starting config (even at the $1,000 mark)
Thank you! Thank you for mentioning that it’s an industry thing and not JUST Apple. This has been discussed since the beginning of time with PCs. Building is ALWAYS cheaper than buying.
It has more memory channels. To get equivalent memory channels on PC you need up to 32 slots for 32 channel (M1 Ultra channels).
And yet there's still plenty of similar form factor pre-built mini PCs you can buy for the same price as entry level M2 Mini with more RAM and storage with comparable CPU performance. Weird. It's still pre-built even it's socketed RAM.
That has nothing to do with it being unified either...
When you wander away from MacRumors, you start to realize it's actually quite common for people who you would expect to be packing maxed out machines to be doing some really amazing work on machines that are pretty close to entry level. That's what finally broke the specs snobbery spell on me. People way more talented than me were running circles around me with less than half of my specs.
Of course, being that I'm not as as talented, I really need every bit of artificial help by way of my processor or RAM that I can get. 😬
I'm joking... but not totally joking.
Last edited: