So selling an 8GB RAM option that’s cheaper is deceptive now? Oh come on, that’s just ridiculous. 🤦🏼♂️😂
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 MacBook Pro?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I said: 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.
So is there not a new cheaper option of MacBook Pro for those who want the MacBook Pro without having to spend extra on specs they don’t want or need? Or do you just think “nope” is a solid counter-argument? And your claim about them “not being future proof” and “becoming e-waste sooner is entirely speculative.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
It's not cheaper lol. They replaced the $1300 M2 13" MBP with the $1600 M3 14" MBP. By your own logic people are now forced to spend more to get specs they might not even want or need.
It’s cheaper than previous 14” MacBook Pros… 🙄. And there wasn’t much the M2 13” MBP offered that the MacBook Air doesn’t. And people can still buy an M2 13” MBP if they so choose.
The first Macbook I bought was the 11" MBA in 2012 which came with 4gb of soldered ram. I get that 10 years ago, there were still some Macs which allowed you to upgrade the ram yourself, but this is hardly a new trend. Apple hasn't allowed ram upgrades in their laptops for well over a decade.
Second, I personally don't see the point of trying to project what I need 5-10 years from today. For one, chances are that most people would have upgraded their laptop by then. Either because the battery has degraded, it no longer receives software updates, or they just want something newer. If we operate under the assumption that only a small number of users will actually hang on to their Macs for close to a decade, then it makes sense that they should be the ones to pay for extra ram and / or storage, because they are the only ones who would actually need that much.
It's just like how when I eat at Macdonalds, I don't upsize my meal because the basic value meal is more than enough for me. If Macdonalds gave everyone a free upsize, some may benefit, but there would also be those who wind up with more fries and drink than they could finish, resulting in wastage. What Apple has done here is come up with a basic spec (8gb ram, 256gb storage) which they project will suffice for the bulk of their non-pro user base (which also happens to be the bulk of their overall Mac user base). And it works because they have the user data and they control the OS.
I have been a teacher for well over a decade now. I am still using the same software I was back then. If 8gb of ram sufficed for me in 2020, it will likely still be enough by 2025, or whenever I decide to get another Mac. And chances are this will be the case for many other people. More ram is always nice, but it's not a necessity, and their laptops are not going to come to a grinding halt just because.
I am more interested in making a statement that is right vs making a statement that is rooted in ideology. It just so happens that being right these days feels almost synonymous with being pro-Apple, because I don't think Apple is wrong in doing what they have done, for the reasons I have stated (8gb of ram suffices for most users, people desiring more can opt for one of the Pro Mac models, and Macs are generally quite reasonably priced for what they offer, upgrades and all).
If that makes Apple greedy in your eyes, then you are most certainly entitled to your opinion. I still feel it's much ado over nothing. We are arguing over what? Spending an extra $200 over 5-10 years? People easily spend 20 times that on a trip to Japan over the holidays, or on coffee in 2 months. This is seriously the hill you all want to die on?
The 13" M2 MBP was discontinued. Not everyone needs or wants a 14" screen or 512GB SSD so with this change they are charging those who were satisfied with the 13" 256GB MBP more for features they don't need.
And those same customers can choose to buy a MacBook Air which now offers pretty much everything those models did. Besides, they can still buy a M2 13” MBP, in fact, they can now get it even cheaper since it is discontinued! 😂.
Like the article said, it depends on your use. The laptop I use to check emails, watch YouTube videos and do light word processing is a 2012, 11", MacBook Air with 8G of RAM and I7 processor and it is more than adequate.
My work laptop does have 16G but I feel it really isn't necessary but I am not doing anything very memory or CPU intensive.
I seriously doubt many actual Mac users are doing work that requires more than 8G of memory. I do know people that are doing a lot of very intensive processes that require as much memory as they can afford but that is the exception and not the rule.
I guess my question is, how much does the $200 upgrade from 8G to 16G actually cost Apple. Since it is embedded in the chip, I am guessing much less than $50. Just another way for Apple to make a little extra money, not really knocking Apple, all companies do it. Dell Charges about $120 for the upgrade but those are actual memory modules.
My work laptop does have 16G but I feel it really isn't necessary but I am not doing anything very memory or CPU intensive.
I seriously doubt many actual Mac users are doing work that requires more than 8G of memory. I do know people that are doing a lot of very intensive processes that require as much memory as they can afford but that is the exception and not the rule.
I guess my question is, how much does the $200 upgrade from 8G to 16G actually cost Apple. Since it is embedded in the chip, I am guessing much less than $50. Just another way for Apple to make a little extra money, not really knocking Apple, all companies do it. Dell Charges about $120 for the upgrade but those are actual memory modules.
Last edited:
Since apple can get components in bulk I would not be surprised if apple’s actual materials cost is less than $20
I find 8GB of RAM good for my needs both on Windows PC's and with my Macs. The only time I need more than 8GB of memory is for my gaming rigs because the games that I play and the graphics settings I need require more than 8GB.
I purchased a base model M2 Mini for $465. I'm very happy with the purchase but I would not drop the kind of money Apple wants for their base model MacBook Pro. I would instead use that towards another gaming rig with an RTX 4090.
I purchased a base model M2 Mini for $465. I'm very happy with the purchase but I would not drop the kind of money Apple wants for their base model MacBook Pro. I would instead use that towards another gaming rig with an RTX 4090.
Ya, I use an 8GB M1 Mac for graphic design, video editing, 3D modeling/sculpting, etc. and it performs great! 👍🏻. I think the people saying 8GB M-series Macs are only good for basic word processing and web-surfing have likely never used an 8GB M-series Mac.
You've an Air... from 11 or 12 years ago.. that has the same RAM capacity of a 'pro' computer of today.
Seriously let that sink in. Apple 10 years before that came with upgradable RAM and their base stats were as little as 256 MB. Over the years they upped that and then once they decided that upgradability was overrated they peaked at 8 GB and then decided that was good enough. 10 years and magically their costs shot up to the point they can't make 16 GB standard unless you pay a premium of $200 USD. That to me doesn't sound very innovative... that sounds *** backwards unless we draw the obvious conclusion.
I own Apple stock and have a stake here, yet even I can't argue over how petty this is. Just about every tech-savvy YouTuber are in agreement over the RAM and they really don't focus on any other details. There's pretty much a consensus that the RAM is under clocked and that it's strategically set for price gouging.
Thus why we the consumers should be protesting publicly. It might be their greed will win out, but often such measures have convinced big corporations to reverse their decisions.
Likewise I use an Intel based computer and it's great for my tasks!
But I would bet you heavily that if I were allowed to use an M1 or M3 machine I'd notice little things like the computer not heating up to extreme temps. I'd notice it performing extreme feats even if I downgraded to 8 GB RAM.
However what if you were told Apple merely needed to pay ~$20 more to give you 16 GB RAM but were too petty? What if their next OS demands 6 GB RAM and you're left with only 2 GB worth to use for programs? Do you not realize that RAM is quite cheap unless you're aiming for extreme values like 32 and above? Do you not feel the least bit cheated that Apple built in this bottleneck and that you'll probably be unable to use this computer in ten years because of the limits in the RAM? What's more that you can't upgrade it later just in case you need it?
Speak for yourself but the OPTION of upgradability to me gives me a certain peace of mind. I went high back in 2019 and can at least know I'll never grind down in performance because I bumped up the specs a bit when buying it. Now the INSTANT that Apple bumps up the RAM and hopefully the storage, I'll trade this computer in... not before, and thus I'm one customer who won't be buying a new Apple until they do away with the 8 GB bottleneck.
I'm not alone, but I'm giving my personal opinion here.
We’re talking about base specs. Why should it be surprising if the base spec has remained the same, especially since it’s still working really well for lots of people? And these YouTubers drive artificial scandals every Mac release, that’s how they keep clicks up. It’s clickbait. Again, if the 8GB base specs were so awful, and so many base spec customers were having an awful experience, then we’d expect to see lower customer satisfaction and less sales. But the 8GB configurations sell very well, and customer satisfaction is very high, so it seem most base spec customers are happy with their 8GB Macs.
My 2013 21.5" iMac still works fine for me as a kitchen computer. I am satisfied with it (other than an intermittent issue with the Bluetooth keyboard). It doesn't mean I'd buy that exact same hardware today as a brand new computer.
Okay then! Why did we go from single processors to dual? Why quads?
The iBook I used from 2005 onwards obviously was good enough. Why the **** should Apple have advanced?!
The only form of tech I think is 'locked' is the TI-89 calculator which performs its functions just as well today as it did ~20 years ago. Unless you elevate it into a tablet it does everything perfectly well. Tablets today however can upload scientific calculator programs and do that... but aren't allowed for tests because of wi-fi abilities.
Seriously if you're spending $600+ on a desktop computer or 1000+ on a laptop... why not upgrade it to 16 GB without coercing extreme markups?!
WHY NOT?!
The answer is greed... that's what all the evidence is pointing towards. Literally every argument ends with this, I'm sorry but it's the elephant in the room your refuse to acknowledge.
It’s not a matter of being “petty”, it just isn’t needed to bump up the base spec yet, because the current base spec is still performing fine, and customers are happy with it. I don’t feel cheated at all. And in 10 years, it likely won’t be running the latest versions of macOS, and I’ll probably be ready to upgrade anyways, if I haven’t before then already. Macs get around an 8 year OS update lifespan. If I planned on using a Mac beyond the OS support life, then I’d probably buy a higher spec, but I think my 8GB Mac will last me a good 6-7 years.
And yet having 18 cores isn't overkill? 10 CPU and 8 GPU cores are WAY over what you need, so why not just go back to intel cores because you obviously don't need more. Know that cores cost a lot more than RAM modules. So why not tell Apple to go back to quad cores to save you even more money?
It's almost like they fitted this artificial bottleneck on very cheap components (RAM and SSD's) and are charging extreme rates. Please present evidence to explain why these break Apple's manufacturing budget to such an extreme degree that upping the RAM to 16 GB would bankrupt them.
Again this goes back to my previous post... greed. Stop depending them... it's a trillion USD corporation! They don't even recognize your existence!
You’re comparing apples to oranges. Improvements in processor tech have had major benefits to even low-end tech users in things like battery runtime, power efficiency, etc. Gobs of RAM don’t have immediate benefits to low-end users. Only those who have much heavier workflows. And pretending the M-Series Macs haven’t advanced enough based on one spec, when they’re literally using ARM chips and have battery runtimes that none of the competition comes close to rivaling is just odd…
CPU cores offer better power efficiency to performance ratio. The base RAM spec doesn’t affect people running higher spec systems, removing CPU cores does… One is fundamental to the system, the other is changeable, hence the options. It’s almost like they’re charging cheaper rates than competitors like Microsoft…
And I’ll “defend” whoever I want, you don’t get to tell me who to “stop defending”…😂 And like I said before, this isn’t to me about just defending Apple, I think offering an 8GB base RAM spec makes a lot of sense considering it’s high performance. My workflow cannot be categorized as average or typical, yet I still have not managed to hit this supposed “bottleneck”. There’s nothing I do, including my niche workflows with 3D and dozens of very large files open, where I’m sitting there thinking, “you know what, I need more RAM because this is taking to long”…
IMHO, Apple management cares ZERO about Customer Loyalty nor offering More Value to that customer Base!
if they cared a new MacBook Pro would be 25% Cheaper and come with at least 16, maybe even 32 go of Ram. At least this way we could load all the applications and peripherals you need and no hand wringing to see if it was going to slow down to a crawl, refuse to load the software or lock up the System totally!
I believe Apple doesn’t care what we think because they don’t have to. They will still sell cell phones and ipads and watches and Macs without us. Maybe Apple needs a lesson in Humility and Customer appreciation….. just my two cents worth.
if they cared a new MacBook Pro would be 25% Cheaper and come with at least 16, maybe even 32 go of Ram. At least this way we could load all the applications and peripherals you need and no hand wringing to see if it was going to slow down to a crawl, refuse to load the software or lock up the System totally!
I believe Apple doesn’t care what we think because they don’t have to. They will still sell cell phones and ipads and watches and Macs without us. Maybe Apple needs a lesson in Humility and Customer appreciation….. just my two cents worth.
I feel you have it backwards.
The question shouldn't be - the amount of ram in my computer needs to double every X number of years just because I like big numbers.
Rather, we should be asking ourselves - is there a legitimate need for there to be more ram in my computer? What am I doing these days that is so much more memory intensive compared to a decade ago? And from what I can see, 8g of ram continues to suffice for the really basic stuff. The people talking about needing more ram are YouTubers shooting in 6k or 8k footage, and these are not the people using entry level Macs, but instead, sporting maxed out PCs.
If that really were the case, then M1 Macs shouldn't be selling, because by your logic, our MBAs and Mac Minis would be slow as molasses because 8gb ram presumably isn't sufficient to even run safari, stock apps, office and iMovie anymore. Yet it's running so much better than my 5k iMac.
As such, so long as Apple is able to ensure that macOS continues to run efficiently, and assuming MS office doesn't become anymore bloated over the next decade, does it really matter that 5 years later, the latest MacBook Air by Apple continues to still sport 8gb of ram as default so long as Apple is able to guarantee that everything runs smoothly on it?
After all, specs are just the means. User experience is the end. Apple knows this, and that is why they have my money. It's about time the rest of the tech industry understood this lesson as well.
Looking at bulk trade prices, it's likely around $20 that Apple would pay to go from 8 to 16GB. 10% of what they charge consumers in the US- remember that in many territories Apple charge a lot more than that too.
Do you know what a future-proofing is? It is not about what is ok for today. It’s about to be able to stay relevant in the near future when LLM based apps/asistents will be regular part of daily routine etc etc, processing larger data (more mpx photos, 8k videos etc). To by able to handle all well without need to swap hell out of your SSD. Also new macs not only come with 8GB but also with one chip of 265 GB SSD so writing/reading is also slowed down. Really? In 2023 new tech For premium price. Mac Air is also still considered a premium laptop in Europe for example.
The storage capacity is also out of hand now, with Apple expecting £400 to jump from 256 to 1TB, despite it probably costing them an extra $20-30. I wouldn't mind paying £200 to go from 1TB to 2TB, but £400 to hit 1TB is insanity! The crowd that defend 8GB in a £1600 machine presumably would also be happy with a butterfly keyboard, bad battery life, mediocre screen, etc, as long as it has an Apple logo on the back and is "better value for the power than the tower I bought in 1992!".
Edit: I called the base MacBook Pro a £1,600 machine. It's actually £1,699 in the UK and €1,999 in Europe. That's just under $2,200 USD... without even spending the ~$40 extra to provide us with 16GB/1TB minimum. It doesn't matter if not everyone "needs" it. I mean, ****, work provide most of us with computers, we don't all "need" to own personal ones. We don't all "need" nice keyboards. We don't all "need" fast charging. But they all make the laptop better and provide room for people to grow and decide they want to play games or whatnot- a decision that would otherwise require a new purchase, due to Apple soldering everything.
Last edited: