Is 8GB of RAM Enough for MacBook Pro?

[Abazigal]

Also remember Apple Silicon Macs cannot be upgraded. It's really customer hostile.
Why do you think Apple designed their newest Macs like this? For their greed/profit.

This must be it. No other explanation is possible. It's totally implausible that there are people out there who could get by perfectly with 8gb of ram. Yes, Apple is clearly so greedy that they are going out of their way to engineer a product so bad that nobody is going to buy it, and devote so much of their production capacity to it. Such genius coming from a company whose very business model is to make hardware so good that users are willing to pay a premium for.

 

[Kal Madda]

Ever since Apple M1 and macOS Big Sur, Macs NEED at least 16 GB to run well and stable.
In other words, 8 GB RAM Macs will bottleneck/perform slow.

That simply isn’t true. Plenty of people are using 8GB M-series Macs and having 0 problems with stability/performance. I use an 8GB M1 Mac to run Blender for 3D modeling/sculpting, I do graphic design work, video editing, etc., and it handles all of those things very well. I’d say it’s running very stable, and fast as well. In fact, it outperforms 16GB Intel setups I’ve used.

 

[Kal Madda]

The truth is the truth. Again, Apple Silicon Macs NEED at least 16 GB RAM.
Apple Silicon Macs with less than 16 GB RAM will wear and tear/not last.

😂. The truth is that 8GB M-series Macs run perfectly fine. Just claiming your shoddy opinion as truth and posting YouTube links doesn’t make them true, lol! 😂. 8GB models sell very well, and customer satisfaction is very high, so the facts don’t line up with the picture you paint of all these poor Apple customers being duped by Apple into buying a MacBook that doesn’t run stable. That is just complete hogwash…

 

[Kal Madda]

This must be it. No other explanation is possible. It's totally implausible that there are people out there who could get by perfectly with 8gb of ram. Yes, Apple is clearly so greedy that they are going out of their way to engineer a product so bad that nobody is going to buy it, and devote so much of their production capacity to it. Such genius coming from a company whose very business model is to make hardware so good that users are willing to pay a premium for.

Ya, exactly. 👍🏻

 

[Chuckeee]

YouTube clickbait

 

[Kal Madda]

YouTube clickbait

Yep, clickbait made by the content creators who need to keep clicks coming by creating artificial scandals every Mac release.

 

[Agincourt]

This must be it. No other explanation is possible.

You are correct. I mean it's not like Apple actually pays anywhere near $200 USD to upgrade to 16 GB... making the base model 16 GB would bankrupt the company because they don't know how to built this component.

Oh wait... I notice many PC manufacturers are including 16GB and they don't appear to be going bankrupt. And WHAT'S THIS?!!! 512 GB storage on many entry-level computers and they're not bleeding to death! Is Super duper expensive SSD and RAM solely an Apple problem?

Oh my god the rest of the world must be wrong!

 

[Abazigal]

You are correct. I mean it's not like Apple actually pays anywhere near $200 USD to upgrade to 16 GB... making the base model 16 GB would bankrupt the company because they don't know how to built this component.

Oh wait... I notice many PC manufacturers are including 16GB and they don't appear to be going bankrupt. And WHAT'S THIS?!!! 512 GB storage and their computers still aren't bleeding the company to death!

Oh my god the rest of the world must be wrong! Is that your answer?

Yes, that has always been my stance since the first day I joined this forum. That the world is wrong about Apple, and will always continue to be wrong, as long as they refuse to make the effort to understand what truly makes Apple tick.

 

[Abazigal]

I am not telling you to endorse it. Life is but a bundle of choices and tradeoffs, and nobody likes being told that they can't have it all. Perhaps you should just buy a windows laptop which allows you to install all the aftermarket ram and storage that you like, and see how far that gets you. Oh right, none of them come with the power efficiency of Apple Silicon. See how that works?

All you have done is explain why you would prefer for 16gb ram / 512gb storage to be the default (lower prices). Nobody here has made a convincing argument as to why Apple should in fact do so. I have also made this argument numerous times. Why can't you all just spec out a Macbook with 16gb ram / 512gb storage, treat it as the entry level model for Apple, and simply pretend that the cheaper, 8gb ram option doesn't exist? And nobody has provided a satisfactory response either.

In other words, we are once again looking at the difference between "could" and "should". Yes, Apple, given their size and wealth, do easily do any of a million things without noticing the hit to their balance sheet (ability). But the simple fact is that they don't have to (inclination).

The simple reason is this. Apple makes 8gb ram the default because their data shows this is what suffices for the majority of their user base. These are people who use their Macs for basic stuff like web browsing, office docs and photo management. They hardly ever have the need for professional software that require more ram, so arguing that something like photoshop or FCP is crippled on 8gb of ram is pointless when this group of people have no use for such software to begin with.

At the same time, Apple controls macOS and is able to optimise it for the M1 chip. This is unlike PC manufacturers who have no influence over windows and can therefore only rely on adding more ram to power through any inefficiencies in the OS. It's the same story of iOS is able to sport better performance compared to android despite having less ram, fewer cores, smaller batteries, just less of everything overall.

In short, Apple is doing precisely what made them a success in the first place. They begin with the end in mind (ie: what they envision their users doing on said Mac), then work backwards to see how best to deliver the desired end user experience. The end result is a product that works great for the customer, while being competitively priced to boot.

It's the same for me. I bought the entry level M1 MBA in 2020 because I knew that it was what sufficed for my needs. 3 years later, it's still going strong, and not once have I felt like I ever needed more horsepower out of it. And if and when that day ever comes, I will simply select the right Mac for my needs, pay and get on with my life.

Oh, life goes on...

 

[Kal Madda]

Okay live in your bubble if that makes you happy. Just know your stance depends on the assumption Apple really is stupid to the nth degree when it comes 'cheaper' components like SSD and RAM. They really cannot make 16 GB RAM and 512 GB storage the norm because they're pathetically stupid.

Or maybe it's much simpler? Like price gouging?

That's why people like us should not be endorsing such behavior.

It really doesn’t depend on Apple being stupid, that’s a strawman.

Or maybe it’s yet simpler than your theory? Like, most base spec users like 8GB of RAM and find it to more than suffice for their needs? Base specs are determined based on which spec does what the majority of base spec users want it to do. 8GB configurations apparently do that considering their high sales and high customer satisfaction. This idea that all base spec users are just being duped, and the base spec really doesn’t do what they want when they buy it is just silly, and it isn’t supported by the facts. Clearly the base spec is working great for the majority of base-spec buyers, since customer satisfaction is high. When the majority of base spec users want or need more RAM, or the system no longer runs as smoothly as it does, then I’m sure Apple will change the spec accordingly. But I doubt that will be anytime soon. Apple has optimized on both the hardware and the software. M-series chips use RAM far more efficiently, and macOS is far more efficient on RAM usage. As @Abazigal pointed out, with Windows PCs, PC manufacturers have zero control over optimizing the OS to run more efficiently on their hardware, so the only thing they can do on their end is chuck more RAM at it and hope that helps. And having used a 16GB Intel system and an 8GB M-series Mac, I can tell you the 8GB M-series Mac actually outperforms that system.

PS. If we assume your premise that Apple is merely motivated by greed, they still have to make something that sells well (so they make lots of money to satisfy their greed). If it performs terribly, and the people purchasing the base spec aren’t able to do what they want with it, then the resulting drop in sales and bad reputation would hurt their bottom line more than upping the base RAM spec would. So your theory that Apple’s just being greedy, and so not upping the base spec because of that doesn’t make any logical sense whatsoever, even assuming your premise. Looking at the facts, it makes more sense that Apple hasn’t upped the base spec because base spec buyers are very happy with the current specs, and there’s no need for it performance-wise.

 

[Kal Madda]

All you have done is explain why you would prefer for 16gb ram / 512gb storage to be the default (lower prices). Nobody here has made a convincing argument as to why Apple should in fact do so. I have also made this argument numerous times. Why can't you all just spec out a Macbook with 16gb ram / 512gb storage, treat it as the entry level model for Apple, and simply pretend that the cheaper, 8gb ram option doesn't exist? And nobody has provided a satisfactory response either.

Exactly! And the silly thing about the people complaining that the cheaper base configuration exists is that you can even configure it with 16GB of RAM and still save money compared to the last two years base models. And what irritates me about this is that many of these content creators were saying the base specs from the last two years (which were more expensive) were a great value, and then as soon as a cheaper base spec configuration with all the same hardware, but the base M-chip rolls out, it’s supposedly a horrible value... 🙄

 

[salamanderjuice]

Exactly! And the silly thing about the people complaining that the cheaper base configuration exists is that you can even configure it with 16GB of RAM and still save money compared to the last two years base models. And what irritates me about this is that many of these content creators were saying the base specs from the last two years (which were more expensive) were a great value, and then as soon as a cheaper base spec configuration with all the same hardware, but the base M-chip rolls out, it’s supposedly a horrible value... 🙄

M2 Pro 14" MBP with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD - $2000
M3 14" MBP with 8GB RAM and 512GB SSD - $1600

You "save" $400 but you also get 8GB less RAM, one less TB port, you lose the ability to use two external displays and only get one, you lose 2 performance cores and 6 GPU cores, memory bandwidth is sliced in half and the performance difference between M3 and M2 Pro isn't big enough to make up for everything lost.

Then if you bump up the base M3 model to 16GB RAM you're only saving $200 and it's pretty clear why it's a horrible value.

 

[Kal Madda]

M2 Pro 14" MBP with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD - $2000
M3 14" MBP with 8GB RAM and 512GB SSD - $1600

You "save" $400 but you also get 8GB less RAM, one less TB port, you lose the ability to use two external displays and only get one, you lose 2 performance cores and 6 GPU cores, memory bandwidth is sliced in half and the performance difference between M3 and M2 Pro isn't big enough to make up for everything lost.

Then if you bump up the base M3 model to 16GB RAM you're only saving $200 and it's pretty clear why it's a horrible value.

That isn’t true, you can use multiple external monitors with a M3 MacBook Pro, you just use a hub. And one less port isn’t that big of a difference. And performance of the M3 is great, a great value for the price point. It’s not clear that it’s a “horrible value”, that’s just your opinion…

 

[salamanderjuice]

That isn’t true, you can use multiple external monitors with a M3 MacBook Pro, you just use a hub. And one less port isn’t that big of a difference. And performance of the M3 is great, a great value for the price point. It’s not clear that it’s a “horrible value”, that’s just your opinion…

No lol. Not "just a hub". You need a special more expensive DisplayLink hub, with DisplayLink drivers installed and it comes with a bunch of caveats like not playing DRM'd content and using your CPU to do the processing.

Most reviewers seem to agree it's horrible value too...

 

[Kal Madda]

No lol. Not "just a hub". You need a special more expensive DisplayLink hub, with DisplayLink drivers installed and it comes with a bunch of caveats like not playing DRM'd content and using your CPU to do the processing.

Most reviewers seem to agree it's horrible value too...

And a DisplayLink hub is a hub… 😂. And many people use it and it works great. 🤷🏼‍♂️. Besides, many people don’t care about multi-monitor setups… 🙄. Those who do can always choose to buy one with a M3 Pro chip if they wish…

Some clickbaity YouTubers/reviewers are whining that it’s “horrible value” because the base 8GB configuration doesn’t render their 8K video as quickly as their souped up model. Wahh. The base spec is more than perfectly fine for many professional workflows, and that’s why it sells so well, and why customer satisfaction is so high.

 

[salamanderjuice]

And a DisplayLink hub is a hub… 😂. And many people use it and it works great. 🤷🏼‍♂️. Besides, many people don’t care about multi-monitor setups… 🙄. Those who do can always choose to buy one with a M3 Pro chip if they wish…

Some clickbaity YouTubers/reviewers are whining that it’s “horrible value” because the base 8GB configuration doesn’t render their 8K video as quickly as their souped up model. Wahh. The base spec is more than perfectly fine for many professional workflows, and that’s why it sells so well, and why customer satisfaction is so high.

No. A DisplayLink hub is a specific kind of hub you have to seek out. Not every store that stocks USB C hubs stocks DisplayLink hubs. Apple for example sells USB C hubs with HDMI out, but they don't sell DisplayLink hubs. And again there's a whole host of extra caveats over native monitor support. Plus they cost significantly more than a generic hub that might not even be needed on a M* Pro model with a USB C monitor. So that "$400 savings" can be eroded down further! And with worse results to boot.

And just because naive computer users are happy with their $1600+ purchase doesn't make it a good value.

 

[Kal Madda]

No. A DisplayLink hub is a specific kind of hub you have to seek out. Not every store that stocks USB C hubs stocks DisplayLink hubs. Apple for example sells USB C hubs with HDMI out, but they don't sell DisplayLink hubs. And again there's a whole host of extra caveats over native monitor support. Plus they cost significantly more than a generic hub that might not even be needed on a M* Pro model with a USB C monitor. So that "$400 savings" can be eroded down further! And with worse results to boot.

And just because naive computer users are happy with their $1600+ purchase doesn't make it a good value.

And it’s still a kind of hub, lol! 😂. And besides, that’s only assuming you’re one of the minority of people who buy a laptop that has its own great display with the intention to dock it with more than 1 monitor…. And there’s this amazing site called Amazon that ships these things to your house, no need to find it at a local store… Sorry for the sarcasm, I’m sure you use Amazon or at least know about it, but this “I can’t find it at a local store, so it isn’t a viable solution” argument is just silly…

And that’s cute, I guess everyone but you is “naive”… 🙄. Or maybe they just don’t need or want all the extras you think are “necessary” for a good experience…. Of course it couldn’t be possible that thousands of Apple customers who buy the base spec MacBook Pro have made a buying decision based on their wants and needs, and are happy with their purchase because it does everything they want and need it to… 🙄 Instead, we should just assume they’re all naive, because you declared it so…

 

[Atog]

8GB is not future proof even on office/light usage macs. It has no place in new macs 2023 onwards.

 

[Agincourt]

All you have done is explain why you would prefer for 16gb ram / 512gb storage to be the default (lower prices). Nobody here has made a convincing argument as to why Apple should in fact do so. I have also made this argument numerous times. Why can't you all just spec out a Macbook with 16gb ram / 512gb storage, treat it as the entry level model for Apple, and simply pretend that the cheaper, 8gb ram option doesn't exist? And nobody has provided a satisfactory response either.

No I have not done that and don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth... or changing the meaning of what I've written.

MAYBE you can say I'm disappointed with Apple over their price gouging. It IS within their rights and I'm not suggesting that we launch an insurrection Jan 6 style because we're unhappy. But you absolutely cannot deny that this company has forced this discussion by making their computers non upgradable. In terms of what's good for the environment I think we could make an argument against them, given that they've tied ALL their electronics onto a single circuit board... therefore one failure compromises the entire computer.

Whereas before people had the option to buy what they needed when needed. Now we're stuck in the position of having to buy the computer we need 5-10 years into the future instead of what we need now. If Apple decided to make their own RAM and SSD modules that we have to buy through them... that at least permits for failures that can be fixed or upgraded later.

Congratulations we now have an excellent solution... Apple can still price gouge for upgrades specific to each machine and the environment is happier. Plus we the consumers can take some peace in knowing we have the option to upgrade later if needed. I've no idea why your so gung ho about defending a nearly trillion dollar corporation when their greed couldn't be much more transparent.

 

[Agincourt]

I want to make 100% sure everyone understands this... Apple is legally well within their rights to design and price their computers however they want. If they want to downgrade the processor and graphics potential while raising the base price by $100 USD... they may absolutely do that! No one here complaining is saying they can't, please don't paint us or our arguments for something they're not.

However history has shown that if there are enough complaints, even against something companies can legally do, they may actually decide to make 16GB or even 12 GB the base configuration. If we all lie down and shut up like certain members here, Apple WILL ensure that 8 GB remains the base configuration forever if they can. Even as Windows machines hit 24 or 32 GB base configurations several years down the road, Apple will ensure that you keep paying $200 USD or possibly more just to push it up to 16GB.

To put it simply... building in 16 GB RAM or 512 GB storage costs Apple very little and they get HUGE cost/profit benefits by those unwilling to chance it with only the base configuration. Storage does at least allow an exit via external SSD's but RAM? Once you've made your purchase there's no going back.

 

[Chuckeee]

To put it simply... building in 16 GB RAM or 512 GB storage costs Apple very little and they get HUGE cost/profit benefits by those unwilling to chance it with only the base configuration.

The potential loss of that huge profit Apple makes selling upgraded memory would cost Apple money. It cost money NOT to make an outrageous profit, that is money not going into Apple’s pockets. What you appear to want is for Apple to make less money so you can spend less. It is just a question of whose greed is more important Apple’s or yours.

 

[Kal Madda]

No I have not done that and don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth... or changing the meaning of what I've written.

MAYBE you can say I'm disappointed with Apple over their price gouging. It IS within their rights and I'm not suggesting that we launch an insurrection Jan 6 style because we're unhappy. But you absolutely cannot deny that this company has forced this discussion by making their computers non upgradable. In terms of what's good for the environment I think we could make an argument against them, given that they've tied ALL their electronics onto a single circuit board... therefore one failure compromises the entire computer.

Whereas before people had the option to buy what they needed when needed. Now we're stuck in the position of having to buy the computer we need 5-10 years into the future instead of what we need now. If Apple decided to make their own RAM and SSD modules that we have to buy through them... that at least permits for failures that can be fixed or upgraded later.

Congratulations we now have an excellent solution... Apple can still price gouge for upgrades specific to each machine and the environment is happier. Plus we the consumers can take some peace in knowing we have the option to upgrade later if needed. I've no idea why your so gung ho about defending a nearly trillion dollar corporation when their greed couldn't be much more transparent.

Apple hasn’t forced any discussion, lol! 😂🤣. You choose to have this discussion, Apple doesn’t make you do it.

Second of all, the reason the M-Series chips perform so well is because everything is unified into one package. Take that away, and you take a big performance penalty. RAM cards aren’t nearly as fast as the soldered RAM they’re using, and the way that they’re using it also boosts speed with their Unified Memory system.

The bottom line is that people now have a cheaper option if they want a MacBook Pro without having to spend extra on specs they don’t want or need such as more RAM, etc. This gives customers more choices.

If you want an Apple-made “upgrade board”, you could always buy a motherboard with more RAM and storage down the road. 🤷🏼‍♂️. They do sell those, and some have done that to upgrade their computers. Of course I don’t think most people are interested in changing their laptops hardware anymore, so the demand is quite niche anyways…

And the same question could be asked of you in reverse: why are you so gung ho about vilifying a company the way you are? There’s plenty of reasonable explanations for why base spec MacBook Pro’s offer 8GB RAM configurations, such as lots of customers want 8GB RAM, it is more than enough for their needs, the performance of the 8GB configurations is very high, etc. But instead you seem to assume that all base configuration buyers are being duped, and they can’t possibly like the performance the 8GB configurations have to offer. As I already mentioned, I use an 8GB M1 Mac for graphic design, video editing, 3D modeling/sculpting, etc. all things which are not average workflows, and the Mac performs extremely well. It beats out the 16GB RAM configurations I’ve used for the same things. Performance is perfectly fine, and I have no reason to believe it won’t be anytime soon…

 

[Chuckeee]

Commodore 64 had more memory (64K vs 48K) and cost less than Apple II. No difference today. Apple was and still is a boutique brand. If you want the fancy Apple brand (and I admit I do) it will cost you more.

 

[Atog]

The bottom line is that people now have a cheaper option if they want a MacBook Pro without having to spend extra on specs they don’t want or need such as more RAM, etc. This gives customers more choices.

Nope. Apple committed themselves to be as eco-friendly as possible by 2030. Making laptops (in 2023 and onwards) which are non-upgradeable with base 8GB/256GB is unforgivable as it creates models which are already not-future proof and are therefore most likely to become e-waste much sooner then is expected/wanted.

Wonder if "Mother Nature" will have a few words with them

 

[redheeler]

Would you be fine with the M3 MBP coming with 16gb ram as default if the base model also cost $200 more?

The only argument I can see which remotely makes sense is that this enables 16gb models to make its way to 3rd party retailers. Otherwise, the argument still stands - nothing is stopping people from simply speccing out the model they want online and getting it delivered to them.

Maybe, it's less deceptive at least.