The best solution would be a future MBP redesign that permits easy customer upgrades of RAM and storage plus replacing the battery (like in the very old days). This would be very "pro", provide a long living product and avoid possible hardware bottlenecks.
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
Ya, and with the level of performance I’m getting out my 8GB Mac now, I have no doubt that it will still be running smooth in 5+ years. In fact, there’s no good reason to assume it won’t run well in that time, considering Apple optimized their OS, and supports Macs for around 8 years. Presumably, the software will remain optimized for at least that period of time. And someone earlier tried to make a claim like “but what if macOS requires 6GBs of RAM in the near future?”. Apple wouldn’t do that while still supporting Mac’s that shipped with 8GB of RAM. Maybe they’d do that after the last 8GB model dropped from support. The whole point of Apple devices is that they work well for their OS support life. And Apple is about keeping their OS efficient, no reason to assume that they’d suddenly add so much bloat ware it would take up most of the system’s RAM.
Once equivalent replaceable RAM is available, this would be great. It would segment the range nicely between Air and Pro products. At a bare minimum, storage should never be needlessly soldered in a MacBook Pro.
The problem is that Unified Memory is a lot faster since it doesn’t have to send signals through bus connections. It’s directly connected to the chip. Any scheme with “replaceable” RAM would negate this, and lead to a pretty dramatic performance hit. Same with the SSD. Direct soldered connections are faster than bus connections. Direct soldered connections are also more energy efficient. These are two of the biggest advantages of Apple Silicon, and you’re wanting to strip them away just so the very few people who even care about “user upgradability” can crack open their computers, voiding their warranties, just so they can supposedly “save” $200? Or maybe people should just buy the spec they want and move on.
As to the argument “but Apple is likely only paying x for RAM, but they’re charging more for it”, the problem is, all computer manufacturers sell RAM upgrades at a markup. Look at the Microsoft Surface line, they charge more than Apple does for their RAM upgrades. Lots of PC manufacturers charge close to the same or more than Apple for RAM upgrades. No computer manufacturer gives away RAM for just whatever it costs them, there’s always a markup to some degree or other. And you’re just trying to make it seem like Apple gouges for their RAM upgrades, when, in reality, many PC manufacturers are charging almost the same, the same, or more.
Cool, just make 16GB/512GB new base line problem solved. Case closed. It's ducking 2024!
8GB RAM in a new laptop is 2014 tech.
Cool, just buy a 16GB/512GB MacBook, problem solved. Case closed.
Again, base RAM spec doesn’t just increase on some arbitrary schedule. It increases as there’s need for it to. 8GB is still performing great.
I don't know about price gouging, but it is a little on the low end by now.
As for anything else: limiting it to one external display is a common criticism. (Yes, I know what DisplayLink is.)
As for anything else: limiting it to one external display is a common criticism. (Yes, I know what DisplayLink is.)
No, it is not performing great it is bypassed through swapping. It's taxing your write/read cycles on your SSD to work as RAM which is not adequate for user's demand, SSD is no RAM and shouldn't substitute it's deficit.
And while it's already bad moreover combined with a single chip SSD 265 GB base model, it's gonna be even worse in the near future as more and more phones will spit 48+MPX, 8K videos like there is no tomorrow etc. Then even BFU usage demands will go up. And currently selling lineup should already count with it. Besides Mother Nature was already pissed up last summer.
8 GiB is about 40 bucks. OTOH, 12 GiB is about 42 bucks.
So, going from 2x4 to 2x8 is about ~20 bucks' difference even without bulk discounts.
Because Apple is a technology company?
Is there a "legitimate need" for a Retina Display? For Wi-Fi? For multiple CPU cores? Does the OS need to do compositing at all, and if not, why even have GPU cores? Or a Neural Engine?
Is there a "legitimate need" macOS Sonoma fades the screen saver into the desktop, which spends GPU resources?
Everything.
macOS Sonoma itself, and the apps you're running, require more memory than OS X Mavericks and apps typically running on it did. Add to that that the GPU, too, now requires more RAM than it did at the time, and draws from the same pool.
It does.
But does Apple want to be the company that sells a $1,599 laptop "for the really basic stuff", or the company that has a damn fine laptop at that price level? The $400-ish iPhone SE doesn't "suffice for basic stuff"; it's a solid phone.
It is enough, I’ve even monitored the Activity Monitor, and I haven’t even hit swap while running heavier softwares. This whole “anything throws it into swap” argument is silly. It doesn’t align with reality. Besides, swap has existed for a long time, and you don’t see every laptop that’s ever used swap failing within 5 years or something. Swap is a normal thing, especially since modern SSDs have such a long lifespan, it doesn’t really impact a Macs 8 year OS support life.No, it is not performing great it is bypassed through swapping. It's taxing your write/read cycles on your SSD to work as RAM which is not adequate for user's demand, SSD is no RAM and shouldn't substitute it's deficit.
And while it's already bad moreover combined with a single chip SSD 265 GB base model, it's gonna be even worse in the near future as more and more phones will spit 48+MPX, 8K videos like there is no tomorrow etc. Then even BFU usage demands will go up. And currently selling lineup should already count with it. Besides Mother Nature was already pissed up last summer.
Again 2014 tech maybe sufficient for you, not future-proof and doesn't mean it should be shipped as brand new device by eco friendly company.
I never complained the RAM was slow on my machines with socketed RAM. Nor did upgrading the RAM ever void the warranty of my iMac. Apple's RAM-door design was clever and allowed me to put in not just more RAM but also faster RAM. I never had to worry about closing apps or tabs to avoid running out of memory with that amount (32 GB), it felt truly luxurious to be not at all concerned with my dozens of tabs and plenty of apps open, running VMs, etc., and ran stable for many years.
Even if modern soldered RAM does have lower latency than socketed RAM, I will gladly put up with a (likely imperceptible) increase in latency to completely eliminate a major concern from my usage of the machine, or completely eliminate $400 in upgrade costs that I could spend elsewhere such as a better CPU or more storage.
Last edited:
Just because Apple is a technology company doesn’t mean that every spec needs to be changed on an arbitrary calendar schedule. MacBooks still use Aluminum casings, does that need to change, or is that spec ok to stay for 10 years or whatever? The length of time a spec exists for is kind of irrelevant. If the spec is still functioning well, then there’s not really a need to change it necessarily. Especially if Apple’s numbers show that most base-spec customers use cases fall well within the 8GB spec.
Furthermore, display resolution, GPU cores, and CPU cores are specs that affect everyone, even those buying more expensive higher spec models. Those components don’t really have upgrade options. The M3 is the M3, you just pick what RAM and storage you want with it. Same with display and other hardware specs, you get the same display on all 14” MacBook Pros. So it’s an apples to oranges comparison. You’re comparing a configurable component against a non-configurable one.
Yes, so the M1-M3 existed in 2014, I didn’t know that… And the beautiful HDR display? The unrivaled battery runtime? I thought not… 8GB of RAM is still found in many modern computers, not just MacBooks, because it’s still plenty for lots of people. And if someone like me can do the kinds of workflows I can do on it today without it breaking a sweat, then it’s seemingly more than future proof for a lot of people…
Neither aluminum nor the specs that depend on it evolve rapidly. RAM does, as does software that depends on it.
Oh, so 2024 Macs should now be PowerPC G4s with USB 1.1 ports? The length is irrelevant, right?
We were talking RAM itself. You're buying your laptop for couple of years of usage, right? It is embarrassing to have soon more RAM in our phone then your work laptop
I had 8GB RAM in my 2020 MBP back in a day and it swapped every day even with light tasks, spinning ball etc. Unnecessary. I don't buy your "I have never seen failed SSD so it's fine" argument. That is not important nor is it any relevant point.
We are not talking there some random no-name company selling last decade stuff. We're talking premium company which is dedicated to making as sustainable products as possible and even offsetting customers energy usage. The very basic thing they can do is to future proof their un-upgradeable HW with better basic specs so there is less e-waste then is necessary.
And it is not first time they are milking their user base with their sub-par baseline. I still remember their 16GB iPhone storage they were milking dry when other manufacturers were already way ahead in terms of storage.
I have a message to the '8 GB is enough' crowd.
Ultimately our arguments aren't about suggesting Apple is doing anything illegal or that no one can cope with 8 GB at reduced price. It's completely about the fact Apple designed RAM and SSD's to be 'baked' into their products and not upgradable, therefore making people pay a premium if they want to future proof their computers... or replace them much sooner. The latter counters their 'green' company reputation, as that shortens their expected life span. I've got an old 2011 iMac that wouldn't be viable today if its storage were a slow hard drive and ~4GB RAM. As Apple eliminated upgradability they stopped being a green company.
The only way we can compel Apple to change their recent trends is to make it clear to them that's it's unpopular. If enough people do this they will have no choice but to bump up the specs. Doing so WILL NOT bankrupt the company. It may take away a huge source of profit for them per unit, but the bumped specs likely would encourage new buyers... hence more sales and higher profits.
The fact 8 GB RAM is so hotly contested amongst a great many reviewers indicates this is an unpopular decision on their part. Storage at least has options like external SSD's, but RAM is fixed and cannot be changed once the unit is built.
Ultimately our arguments aren't about suggesting Apple is doing anything illegal or that no one can cope with 8 GB at reduced price. It's completely about the fact Apple designed RAM and SSD's to be 'baked' into their products and not upgradable, therefore making people pay a premium if they want to future proof their computers... or replace them much sooner. The latter counters their 'green' company reputation, as that shortens their expected life span. I've got an old 2011 iMac that wouldn't be viable today if its storage were a slow hard drive and ~4GB RAM. As Apple eliminated upgradability they stopped being a green company.
The only way we can compel Apple to change their recent trends is to make it clear to them that's it's unpopular. If enough people do this they will have no choice but to bump up the specs. Doing so WILL NOT bankrupt the company. It may take away a huge source of profit for them per unit, but the bumped specs likely would encourage new buyers... hence more sales and higher profits.
The fact 8 GB RAM is so hotly contested amongst a great many reviewers indicates this is an unpopular decision on their part. Storage at least has options like external SSD's, but RAM is fixed and cannot be changed once the unit is built.
Last edited:
And you’re comparing apples to oranges again… As I already said, CPUs are different than a configurable spec like RAM. Having one bad CPU choice for everyone isn’t the same as having a variety of RAM choices people can choose from. If Apple added an option to configure the CPU with a CPU with less cores at a cheaper price point, then I’d be perfectly fine with that.
No, you are. Comparing RAM and aluminum is insulting.
iPhone’s don’t have more RAM at base spec, nor do they need it. Nor do base spec laptops. And I notice you say 2020 and not M1 MacBook Pro. As someone who has used both 16GB Intel machines and an 8GB Mac, I can tell you there is a very big difference in how efficiently they use RAM. It’s a lot like how iPhones are able to way outperform Android phones that have more RAM. It’s the same kind of scenario here.We were talking RAM itself. You're buying your laptop for couple of years of usage, right? It is embarrassing to have soon more RAM in our phone then your work laptop
I had 8GB RAM in my 2020 MBP back in a day and it swapped every day even with light tasks, spinning ball etc. Unnecessary. I don't buy your "I have never seen failed SSD so it's fine" argument. That is not important nor is it any relevant point.
We are not talking there some random no-name company selling last decade stuff. We're talking premium company which is dedicated to making as sustainable products as possible and even offsetting customers energy usage. The very basic thing they can do is to future proof their un-upgradeable HW with better basic specs so there is less e-waste then is necessary.
And it is not first time they are milking their user base with their sub-par baseline. I still remember their 16GB iPhone storage they were milking dry when other manufacturers were already way ahead in terms of storage.
And when you’re making the argument that “swap usage makes the system not last”, it’s perfectly relevant to point out the fact that swap memory has been used by computer systems for decades, and we haven’t seen tons of these computers just failing after 5 years of use due to swap memory usage, that’s complete hogwash… Besides, as I pointed out, I’ve literally done 3D modeling/sculpting workflows with 8GB of RAM without it touching swap memory at all. My normal workflow exceeds what most people would expect out of a base-spec device, and if I were buying an Intel machine, I would absolutely want to get 16GB of RAM. But the M-series chips make 8GB of RAM perform similar to 16GB on the Intel systems I’ve used, so I’m perfectly content with 8GB.
And again, you falsely assert that 8GB systems aren’t future proof. How do you know this? Have you consulted a crystal ball? Traveled forward in time 5-8 years with Marty and Doc? If not, you cannot argue with certainty that 8GB, or even 16GB for that matter is “future proof”. All a customer can do is buy the spec that they think will last them for the macOS support life of their device, and many people are perfectly confident that 8GB will do that for them.
I didn’t compare them directly as you are, I mentioned Aluminum to demonstrate that just because something’s been implemented on a product for a while, doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. You, on the other hand, for whatever reason, consider RAM and CPU to be directly comparable things, and they aren’t.
Ad M series RAM, and here we go again....
Ad future-proofing, unless tomorrow is some cataclysm it will be that way...trust me, oh wait! It is already lacking in more then basic usage and have to help itself with swapping!
Absolutely! It's not enough for modern games, for example, so I think it's clear it doesn't prepare us for games released in 5 years time. Especially as there is no separate video RAM, the unified RAM needs to be a little larger for programs that hammer the GPU cores.Ad M series RAM, and here we go again....
Ad future-proofing, unless tomorrow is so me cataclysm it will be that way...trust me, oh wait! It is already lacking in more then basic usage and have to help itself with swapping!
Ya, it’s swapping so much that I’ve done 3D modeling/sculpting workflows, video editing workflows, and graphic design workflows with lots of large files open, none of which even touched swap memory. But because some YouTubers 8K video editing workflow used some swap memory, that means that everybody’s workflows are just using tons of swap memory… 🙄Ad M series RAM, and here we go again....
Ad future-proofing, unless tomorrow is so me cataclysm it will be that way...trust me, oh wait! It is already lacking in more then basic usage and have to help itself with swapping!
So you agree that it was an insultingly poor comparison.
Oh, you’re a hardware engineer now?