Valid point but it still has nothing to do with the cost of the BOM. The cost of 8GB vs 16GB chips is NOT the issue.
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.
Is 8GB of RAM Enough for a Mac in 2024?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, but you don't buy Macs to save money. You buy it for the experience.
I would easily pay $3000 for a base MBA to avoid using Windows or being part of the Google ecosystem.
Many 'entry level users' may be new to Apple and assume the base level will do so much more, especially with Apple pronouncements about gaming. It's no good then someone with 8Gb finding their machine would have a greater longevity and better performance if they had 16GB, as by then its too late.
Its not just about the 8Gb - 16Gb its about economy too, as I believe Apple are shooting themselves in both feet as its no good shooting from the rooftop about gaming, which may induce new users to the Mac on a base 8GB? It won't provide for happy customers who may find 2-3 years down the line their machine is obsolete, and won't even run updated software.
On the commercial front I don't believe it makes sense any more for Apple to have 8Gb in their base line up. By increasing the base to 16Gb they can have a much larger 16Gb run, save costs on stopping the 8Gb run, where then the costs are minimal rather than the perception that they are shafting customers with RAM upgrade prices.
Far better for Apple to do it, make whatever production savings they can from economies of scale and cutting out the 8Gb run, and then sing from the rooftop about the difference between Apple and other manufacturers, where Apple are pursuing gaming and where AI and other software enhancements will inevitable require greater RAM.
So better for Apple to do that, and then use the enhanced PR than this constant drip drip drip of customers unhappy with extortionate RAM upgrade costs for Pro machines, where some software for pro users already exceeds 8Gb.
Nope… only after they are heavily discounted they sell. I bet also they are the most returned.
Of course, there is. I would never stop using a Mac and having it replaced by iPad.
The EXPERIENCE of using a Mac is so much better than using an iPad.
I don't really car if a MacBook costs $500, $1000, $2000 or $3000 as long as I get what I need/want. I'm not an Apple customer because I want to save money, quite the contrary.
You're making the mistake that using swap is bad. It's not. It's a good thing. Your memory pressure is still just yellow.
Also, Slack on Mac is a memory hog.
One reason Apple should upgrade is they have a reputation of being proactive since Steve Jobs days, hence the Apple premium. there's also the economy of scale benefit to Apple in cutting out the 8Gb run which then adds economy of scale to a much larger 16Gb run and.
Can you imagine the PR coup for Apple in arbitrarily increasing base RAM to 16Gb, as. no doubt it would be a Vive La Difference in Apple marketing rather than the disingenuous 8Gb is equivalent to 16GB on a pc, where independent tests make that claim look poor, and where independent tests on Pro Macs with 8Gb and 16Gb show the difference it makes.
They could almost make it self financing, and encourage more Apple users, rather than what appears to be happening, with multiple media pundits, and even industry experts suggesting 8Gb is just not up to it anymore and will certainly not be up to it in the next few years, with more emphasis on gaming, AI, VR etc. and where software already used by many Mac users, already. hits the 8GB minimum just for that one piece of software.
I still have a working Apple Lisa, and still use the G5.....but that's not to say they can run modern software let alone increased demands that will be placed on software via AI, VR etc.
Nah. Making everything 16 GB would be throwing money down the drain for Apple. They'd get a bit of goodwill from MacRumors types, but that wouldn't really count for much for the bottom line.
Most people I know don't know that they are supposed to be indignant about that measly 8 GB RAM. They just use their machines with 8 GB RAM and it works just fine for them. In fact, I intentionally bought 8 GB Macs for my wife and kid, specifically because I KNEW 16 GB would be a total waste of money on them. Not surprisingly, Activity Monitor on their machines NEVER goes into even the yellow, and they don't complain about beachballs. Maybe when I upgrade their machines in say 2027, they will get more memory, but at this time 16 GB is completely unnecessary for their usage. And in 2027, 16 GB will still be overkill for the base model. A good compromise for Apple would be a starting point of 12 GB.
Last edited:
Now, do human penis size over the last 2500 years.
Sometimes, you just reach a size which is enough to do the basic task.
Something a lot of people don't realize is that most of the ram that's used on your computer isn't tasks that are currently open. It's actually past things that your computer is trying to remember. Like apps that were recently open, file paths that you recently searched for in Finder, websites that were recently loaded in Safari. The ram tries to remember as much stuff as possible, going back a long time. Even if you get 64gb of ram, it's going to try to fill that up with as much stuff as it can remember.
So I think for casual use, 8gb is plenty.
So I think for casual use, 8gb is plenty.
Yes, but how much can you upgrade RAM on Wintel machines for, and can you upgrade Apple unified memory after the initial purchase? NO.
Apple came back from the bring with Steve Jobs proactive NeXTSTEP software being innovative and being still the basis for most Mac OS's. 8Gb of unified RAM is not proactive, it confines built in obsolescence at a time when AI, VR ETC will require significant RAM, and where those suggesting they are 'light users' will still be using upgraded web browsers, AI functionality etc.
That is until new updates on software accounting for AI, VR, browsers etc., which a user may have no control over, then requires significantly more RAM....Ram many users will not have.
So you didn't buy them for the proactive approach to computing, which is what Steve jobs brought to the table, and why Apple went from a near bankrupt company to a premium proactive company?
Economy of scale would mean it certainly would not be 'throwing money down the drain for Apple.' Anyone in the business knows the greater the run, the greater the discount, so cut out the 8Gb base, would increase the 16Gb run plus have the saving from cutting the 8Gb production run.
Capture One is not basic use and needs a lot of memory. Minimum requirement is 8Gb of RAM and they recommend 16Gb or more.
And if you connect a 4K screen they recommend doubling it.
Photos, which most regular users would use for editing photos, is like Driving Miss Daisy compared to Capture one.
8 GB RAM isn't enough for me, nor for several colleagues/friends/family members.
It is, however, enough for several colleagues/friends/family members.
🤷♂️ Apple isn't my friend, nor anyone else's. They are a corporation; I don't expect them to like me or care about me. That they keep selling machines configured this way tells me what I need to know: plenty of people are buying their stuff.
It is, however, enough for several colleagues/friends/family members.
🤷♂️ Apple isn't my friend, nor anyone else's. They are a corporation; I don't expect them to like me or care about me. That they keep selling machines configured this way tells me what I need to know: plenty of people are buying their stuff.
Economies of scale? Wut? Apple already has one of the biggest production volumes in the world.
The purpose of the basic configurations isn't to excel in intensive tasks, but to handle basic functions.
Macs should't be only for people who need performance and do complex tasks.
Also, saving money isn't part of being a Mac user.
All the parts of computing that aren't hardware tricks are software tricks. If the performance feels adequate, does it really matter how that's been accomplished? That's not to say that memory starvation or swap thrash isn't a concern; if that's happening performance isn't adequate and something will need to be addressed.
The way I see it memory is a subssytem: it has a bunch of parts that fit together to deliver results; physical and virtual memory are both requisite components as is how that memory is managed. Hobbling this system by arbitrarily disabling part of it just doesn't make much sense to me.
It might be that "excessive" SSD usage will lead to some sort of future failure but I'd argue that there's a greater chance of spilling coffee on the keyboard or knocking the laptop off a desk.
Here are some comparisons in Norway:
8GB as a standard is fine and I don't mind it, the same with 256GB, my parents would never need anything else.
- MBA M2 base: 13 990 NOK (approx. 1336 USD) vs 1074 with highest sales tax (California)
- Norway has a 25% sales tax > making the base price of 999 USD become 1249 USD
- 87 dollars difference or 7% more (not that bad)
- upgrades in Norway are typically 3000 NOK vs 200 (or 215 with sales tax) USD
- 3000 NOK = approx 286 dollars
- 71 dollars difference or 33% more
- upgrades accumulate, so I end up paying 33%, 66%, 100% more in Norway compared to the US
Upgrade pricing is insane and hurts so much more in Norway, even with Norwegian economy where food prices etc. has surged the last couple of years (almost doubled in some cases).
The only consolation is the longevity of the hardware itself. I still have a MBP M1 and I probably won't upgrade until M4 or M5, maybe not even then. I would consider upgrading more frequently if the upgrade prices were sane. Paying so much extra each time makes CPU and GPU upgrades almost trivial because half (or more) of the total cost comes from additional upgrades.
This is basically a complaint about price, which is different from is 8Gb of RAM enough to get acceptable performance.
As I said in my post, these tricks amplify the usefulness of higher RAM amounts as well.
There are benefits to compression, SSDs, and other techniques used to improve system performance.
But lower RAM amounts increase the need to rely on these features to keep the system responsive. Additional writes to SSDs increase the wear of the drive as SSD endurance is determined by drive writes.
Since RAM is unified on Apple’s M-Series chips unlike Intel + discrete graphics back in the pre-M days I think it also adds extra pressure on higher end machines as well depending on the workload.
That said, Apple should have a 16GB RAM floor on their laptops.
Here you have a memory leakage.
It's quite impressive that you have an application using 105 Gb of RAM and memory pressure isn't red!
Did you notice the OS still found memory to use for file caching. Almost unbelievable impressive. And you can still kill photos.