Is 8GB of RAM Enough for MacBook Pro?

[Kal Madda]

So you agree that it was an insultingly poor comparison.

Oh, you’re a hardware engineer now?

It wasn’t a comparison. It was an illustration of a bigger point. But whatever…

And whether or not I’m a hardware engineer is completely irrelevant. Laws of logic apply no matter my occupation, lol! 😂. You’re comparing a spec that is shared by all upgrade tiers of a product to a spec that is configurable. That is inherently not a good comparison. They’re two different things that have a different effect on a product. A configurable RAM spec can be ignored by a customer if they want a higher spec. The non-configurable CPU spec cannot.

 

[Kal Madda]

Kal Madda would be surely doing his "3D modeling/sculpting workflow" on 2GB of unified RAM if it existed in M series... Sadly Apple aimed much higher.

8GB is a lot different from 2GB. That’s just silly, and you know it. 8GB of RAM handles my workflow just fine, and is more than enough. And I haven’t touched swap memory with my workflow, but if it needed to, it can always tap into swap and perform just fine.

 

[chucker23n1]

And whether or not I’m a hardware engineer is completely irrelevant.

It's relevant in that you've hardly shown yourself to be an expert on either RAM or CPUs.

You’re comparing a spec that is shared by all upgrade tiers of a product to a spec that is configurable. That is inherently not a good comparison. They’re two different things that have a different effect on a product. A configurable RAM spec can be ignored by a customer if they want a higher spec. The non-configurable CPU spec cannot.

The CPU is configurable on multiple Macs. Your point here is probably "yeah, the base config isn't great, but at least you can upgrade it", but it's not a very strong point. Would you also argue "yeah, they're giving it a 2+2-core M3; you have to spend $200 to get the 4+4 setup, but that's OK because the base is good enough"? It sure sounds like it. So, let's continue on that train. Why not make the Retina display a $200? Heck, since you seem to like aluminum so much, why not make that another $200, and offer magnesium instead?

The point stands that the base RAM hasn't changed in over a decade, and that is generally not appropriate for computers.

 

[Kal Madda]

It's relevant in that you've hardly shown yourself to be an expert on either RAM or CPUs.



The CPU is configurable on multiple Macs. Your point here is probably "yeah, the base config isn't great, but at least you can upgrade it", but it's not a very strong point. Would you also argue "yeah, they're giving it a 2+2-core M3; you have to spend $200 to get the 4+4 setup, but that's OK because the base is good enough"? It sure sounds like it. So, let's continue on that train. Why not make the Retina display a $200? Heck, since you seem to like aluminum so much, why not make that another $200, and offer magnesium instead?

The point stands that the base RAM hasn't changed in over a decade, and that is generally not appropriate for computers.

As I said, if they offered a yet cheaper option with less cores for people with lighter computing needs that could fill the ChromeBook type market, then I would actually be perfectly fine with that. Cheaper options don’t make the options I want to purchase more expensive, they just provide more cheaper options for people who don’t have the same priorities or budget. And providing a cheaper 8GB RAM version of the 14” MacBook Pro does the same thing. People can still buy the M3 Pro configuration for the same price as last years M2 Pro configuration. Now there’s just a cheaper option with lower specs for those who don’t need or want the higher specs. If Apple decided to introduce a yet cheaper option with like an A17 or something, I’d be perfectly fine with that.

 

[ric22]

It's relevant in that you've hardly shown yourself to be an expert on either RAM or CPUs.



The CPU is configurable on multiple Macs. Your point here is probably "yeah, the base config isn't great, but at least you can upgrade it", but it's not a very strong point. Would you also argue "yeah, they're giving it a 2+2-core M3; you have to spend $200 to get the 4+4 setup, but that's OK because the base is good enough"? It sure sounds like it. So, let's continue on that train. Why not make the Retina display a $200? Heck, since you seem to like aluminum so much, why not make that another $200, and offer magnesium instead?

The point stands that the base RAM hasn't changed in over a decade, and that is generally not appropriate for computers.

100% with that all.

CPU's are configurable. Cheapo $30 tablet class M3 at the bottom up to the fancy Max chips at the top.

 

[Chuckeee]

Question: If 16GB was the default configuration (fixed soldered in place), would it be acceptable to order 8GB (fixed soldered in place) at a price discount?

 

[chucker23n1]

Question: If 16GB was the default configuration (fixed soldered in place), would it be acceptable to order 8GB (fixed soldered in place) at a price discount?

IMHO, 2024 Mac models shouldn't be offered below 12 GiB, no matter the price tag.

 

[Kal Madda]

IMHO, 2024 Mac models shouldn't be offered below 12 GiB, no matter the price tag.

Yes, so Apple shouldn’t offer any ChromeBook alternatives, the ChromeBook and light-use budget laptop market shouldn’t be catered to at all by Apple in other words…

 

[chucker23n1]

Yes, so Apple shouldn’t offer any ChromeBook alternatives, the ChromeBook and light-use budget laptop market shouldn’t be catered to at all by Apple in other words…

This hypothetical is quite a stretch.

They already have a Chromebook alternative; it's called the iPad, and at $329 without a keyboard, it's much pricier already.

If they were to do a Mac for $329, which they absolutely are not for so many reasons, then sure, give it less RAM. It'd probably suffer the same idiocy as some netbooks, and run something like XP Starter Edition, with some OS features stripped and others limited. So it would technically be a Mac with less RAM, but it also wouldn't be the "real" Mac experience.

 

[Mega ST]

To me it looks like Apple is combining great chips like the M3 with not enough RAM. Intended or not this will create a bottleneck for a powerful, expensive brand machine soon. On top there is a strange science of only certain chip variants being upgradable to certain amounts of RAM. I'd prefer more flexibility and after market user options.

 

[Agincourt]

I hope that we may at least come to some level of agreement. Thus far it looks to me like one side is convinced that 1 GB of Apple memory is worth 2 GB because you were told that by Apple. That Apple's greed and their right to charge huge premiums for cheap components is well within their rights as a company. And that if they had their formulas wrong they wouldn't be setting base stats 8 GB unless most people wanted it.

Well here's what I think is a suitable capstone counter argument to that. Corporations do this kind of practice a lot and sometimes enough outrage from customers can and will force a company to scale back on price gouging. What we need now more than anything is to spur enough outrage and compel their top brass to yield to customer demands. Apple's a trillion dollar corporation, they don't need your apologetics!

If you start going the opposite way and saying a ~$1600 doesn't need 8 GB RAM, then maybe the next logical question is do you need an Apple at all? Why not go for something cheaper? Just as easily as the 'pro 8 GB' crowd have been claiming that we're simply whining about not getting more... don't you realize how much more we got only 8 years ago? We had upgradable drives and RAM (in desktops at least) which Apple didn't bake into their computers. And ever since then all of their competitors have been scaling up while Apple chose to scale back... forcing us into the position of having no means of upgrades and with the only possible ones coming from Apple at huge markups!

Seriously they're reached the point they're not even trying to hide their greed anymore, and we really need to be rallying against this.

Or just drop the brand I guess.

 

[Kal Madda]

I hope that we may at least come to some level of agreement. Thus far it looks to me like one side is convinced that 1 GB of Apple memory is worth 2 GB because you were told that by Apple. That Apple's greed and their right to charge huge premiums for cheap components is well within their rights as a company. And that if they had their formulas wrong they wouldn't be setting base stats 8 GB unless most people wanted it.

Well here's what I think is a suitable capstone counter argument to that. Corporations do this kind of practice a lot and sometimes enough outrage from customers can and will force a company to scale back on price gouging. What we need now more than anything is to spur enough outrage and compel their top brass to yield to customer demands. Apple's a trillion dollar corporation, they don't need your apologetics!

If you start going the opposite way and saying a ~$1600 doesn't need 8 GB RAM, then maybe the next logical question is do you need an Apple at all? Why not go for something cheaper? Just as easily as the 'pro 8 GB' crowd have been claiming that we're simply whining about not getting more... don't you realize how much more we got only 8 years ago? We had upgradable drives and RAM (in desktops at least) which Apple didn't bake into their computers. And ever since then all of their competitors have been scaling up while Apple chose to scale back... forcing us into the position of having no means of upgrades and with the only possible ones coming from Apple at huge markups!

Seriously they're reached the point they're not even trying to hide their greed anymore, and we really need to be rallying against this.

Or just drop the brand I guess.

First of all, I will say, as someone who has used both an 8GB M-Series Mac and 16GB Intel systems, the 8GB M-Series Macs perform better than the 16GB Intel systems in my experience. So from my experience, 8GB absolutely does perform similarly (if not better) than 16GB Intel systems.

Second, I believe Apple’s decision to include 8GB of RAM in the base spec isn’t motivated by greed, but rather based on Apple’s numbers and data on who their base spec customers are, and how they’re using their Macs. Since customer satisfaction is very high, and base spec units are selling very well, I see no reason to assume that isn’t the case. If Apple were only basing their decision on greed, and not the data on base spec customers, then I would expect to see much lower customer satisfaction, and far less sales of the base spec configurations. But that isn’t what we see, so I see no reason to assume that this spec isn’t in alignment with base spec customer’s needs or preferences.

Thirdly, how profitable the company is has nothing to do with whether or not 8GB is a good base spec, and is entirely irrelevant. And saying that I don’t see any reason to believe that the base spec doesn’t satisfy the majority of base spec customers (the numbers say they do) doesn’t equal apologetics.

And we’re getting much more than we did then. We’re getting computers that don’t double as hot plates, with battery runtimes completely unrivaled by any PC competitor. We’re getting computers that use resources far more efficiently, meaning we don’t need the same kind of RAM and other specs to get the same and often better performance than the competitors. We’re getting more apps and interconnectivity with our other devices. Only if you’re laser focused on one spec are we supposedly getting less.

 

[Chuckeee]

I hope that we may at least come to some level of agreement. Thus far it looks to me like one side is convinced that 1 GB of Apple memory is worth 2 GB because you were told that by Apple. That Apple's greed and their right to charge huge premiums for cheap components is well within their rights as a company. And that if they had their formulas wrong they wouldn't be setting base stats 8 GB unless most people wanted it.

Well here's what I think is a suitable capstone counter argument to that. Corporations do this kind of practice a lot and sometimes enough outrage from customers can and will force a company to scale back on price gouging. What we need now more than anything is to spur enough outrage and compel their top brass to yield to customer demands. Apple's a trillion dollar corporation, they don't need your apologetics!

If you start going the opposite way and saying a ~$1600 doesn't need 8 GB RAM, then maybe the next logical question is do you need an Apple at all? Why not go for something cheaper? Just as easily as the 'pro 8 GB' crowd have been claiming that we're simply whining about not getting more... don't you realize how much more we got only 8 years ago? We had upgradable drives and RAM (in desktops at least) which Apple didn't bake into their computers. And ever since then all of their competitors have been scaling up while Apple chose to scale back... forcing us into the position of having no means of upgrades and with the only possible ones coming from Apple at huge markups!

Seriously they're reached the point they're not even trying to hide their greed anymore, and we really need to be rallying against this.

Or just drop the brand I guess.

While I don’t share your degree of outrage about 8GB, I do believe your response is rational. Instead of just going back & forth on a message board letting the marketplace and consumers drive the results is a response that I agree with.

If consumers decide to leave/avoid Apple over these issues (seems like there are overlapping issues between minimum RAM, RAM upgrade costs, user accessible RAM and similar concerns with SSD, not just a single issue) and force apple to change, I am willing to admit my position was wrong.

Although I suspect there is not a ground swell of support for this. I’m willing to let the marketplace decide and show me the error of my ways.

 

[Kal Madda]

While I don’t share your degree of outrage about 8GB, I do believe your response is rational. Instead of just going back & forth on a message board letting the marketplace and consumers drive the results is a response that I agree with.

If consumers decide to leave/avoid Apple over these issues (seems like there are overlapping issues between minimum RAM, RAM upgrade costs, user accessible RAM and similar concerns with SSD, not just a single issue) and force apple to change, I am willing to admit my position was wrong.

Although I suspect there is not a ground swell of support for this. I’m willing to let the marketplace decide and show me the error of my ways.

Agreed. If most base spec customers want 16GB of RAM, I’m sure Apple will give it to them. I’m not convinced that that is the case considering high sales and high customer satisfaction with the current 8GB base spec, but I’m all for the market driving things. What I’m not in favor of is a few YouTubers and content creators sensationalizing artificial scandals to drive clicks and views. Again, if this were such a common complaint among base spec customers, then I’d expect to see much lower customer satisfaction and less sales of the 8GB base spec. But if this is something most base spec customers want, again, I’m sure Apple will give it to them. Whether you consider Apple to be greedy or not, the only way they sell lots of products and satisfy their customers is selling them products that appeal to them. In fact, the “Apple is greedy” argument would, if anything, mean that Apple would be trying to sell as many products as possible, so if most of their base spec customers weren’t happy with 8GB of RAM, it wouldn’t make any sense for them to not up the spec to avoid losing sales. This is why I don’t buy that this is a common want or complaint among base spec customers.

I also fail to see a groundswell of support for this, I believe this will pass just like last years’ artificial SSD scandal. If I’ve learned anything from watching the content creators/YouTubers and how they cover Apple and product releases, it is that most of them need some kind of artificial scandal to point at to drive clicks and views. There are a few good and balanced content creators and YouTubers out there that don’t tend to join in the artificial scandal pushing, but they do seem to be few and far between.

 

[Kal Madda]

Pro Apple laptops for over a decade ago had like 32 GB RAM.
In 2024, Apple sells "Pro" laptops with 8 GB RAM for over $1000.

Pro Apple laptops from over a decade ago didn’t have 32GB RAM as a base spec, they had 4GB as base spec. And most user’s needs have also largely tapered off. 8GB of RAM is plenty for lots of people, and that’s why lots of Windows laptops still offer 8GB RAM base specs.

 

[Kal Madda]

No, 8 GB RAM is not enough in 2024. Consumers knows this, Apple knows this. Again, 8 GB was ok over a decade ago.
In 2024, not everyone wants to buy a $1600 "Pro" laptop with 8 GB RAM. Also Apple stocks (AAPL) are now declining -2.29 (1.23%).

It’s plenty for lots of people. Apparently most base spec customers don’t “know this” since the 8GB base spec sells very well, and customer satisfaction is very high. Also, good news is that not everyone has to buy it if they don’t want to. And more good news, there’s lots of other specs of this device that make it a great deal for it’s price, such as the high quality display, unrivaled battery runtime, high quality sound system, high build quality, high performance, etc.

PS, the “the base spec 8GB RAM MacBook Pro didn’t process my 8K video as fast” argument from these YouTubers is meaningless. It’s a base spec model, if I intended on editing 8K video all the time, I’d buy the souped up M3 Pro models YouTubers like him favor. Also, the “16GB” Windows laptop is actually effectively a 24GB computer because it has a graphics card with an additional 8GB of RAM which can be used for all of the graphics-related processes he was comparing such as Lightroom imports and exports, video rendering, etc. So it isn’t a true 8GB M-series Mac to 16GB Windows comparison, it’s a rigged comparison. And it still performed pretty closely on most things, despite the comparison being slanted heavily in favor of the 24GB Windows PC being presented as a 16GB one. Also should be noted that that PC is more expensive.

 

[Chuckeee]

No, 8 GB RAM is not enough in 2024. Consumers knows this, Apple knows this. Again, 8 GB was ok over a decade ago.
In 2024, not everyone wants to buy a $1600 "Pro" laptop with 8 GB RAM. Also Apple stocks (AAPL) are now declining -2.29 (1.23%).

1) Of course 16 GB is better than 8GB
2) The issue isn’t what is “best” or “optimal” but what is “sufficient”. Yes there are use cases where more RAM is needed or preferred. But it should be user who decides if waiting ½ sec for a web page to load requires paying for more RAM. If you need more RAM, just hold your nose and pay the money to satisfies Apple’s greed.
3) Please, please, please stop linking to these click bait YouTube videos. Your concern is clear and understandable. You don’t need to propagate this clickbait junk

 

[chatin]

It is doubly bad because Apple makes it run in single channel mode. 16GB buyers not only get more memory but enhanced performance.

 

[Kal Madda]

1) Of course 16 GB is better than 8GB
2) The issue isn’t what is “best” or “optimal” but what is “sufficient”. Yes there are use cases where more RAM is needed or preferred. But it should be user who decides if waiting ½ sec for a web page to load requires paying for more RAM. If you need more RAM, just hold your nose and pay the money to satisfies Apple’s greed.
3) Please, please, please stop linking to these click bait YouTube videos. Your concern is clear and understandable. You don’t need to propagate this clickbait junk

This supposed 16GB Windows laptop actually has 24GB in total, because the graphics card it uses adds an additional 8GB of RAM which can be used for most if not all of the processes he was “comparing”. This is definitely clickbait junk. And I totally agree that the customer should choose the RAM spec that is appropriate for their use case. And 8GB is plenty for lots of people, if someone needs more, they can choose a bigger option.

 

[Kal Madda]

It is doubly bad because Apple makes it run in single channel mode. 16GB buyers not only get more memory but enhanced performance.

The “single channel SSD” thing is a way overblown artificial clickbait scandal. Not really noticeable real-world use case difference.

 

[Kal Madda]

Yes, finally someone who speaks the truth. Also 16 GB RAM means way more longevity and is future proof for decades.

And Macs are supported for around 8 years, why would I care if it lasted several decades? I would never use one without upgrading that long. Furthermore, it will almost certainly not be “future proof for decades”. That would be like using a computer from the 90s or early 2000s today. It wouldn’t be very practical by then, and certainly wouldn’t be considered “future proof”…

 

[Atog]

And Macs are supported for around 8 years, why would I care if it lasted several decades? I would never use one without upgrading that long. Furthermore, it will almost certainly not be “future proof for decades”. That would be like using a computer from the 90s or early 2000s today. It wouldn’t be very practical by then, and certainly wouldn’t be considered “future proof”…

It matters because Apple is now aiming for 2030 carbon neutral, minimum e-waste future. Bare minimum is to produce no low spec devices or better under-spec devices when their goal is sustainability. They want other companies to copy them in their way to better world so they should lead with an example.
Because as things are standing now it looks like Apple use this “sustainability” formula only to get better profit.

 

[Kal Madda]

I think he meant that if 8GB can be the standard for the last 11 or 12 years then 16GB could be the standard for the next 10-20. Trying to keep a laptop for a decade isn't a great idea, indeed.

I agree that trying to keep a laptop for a decade isn’t a great idea. But I think 8GB is perfectly fine as a base spec. I do not agree that he was meaning that that spec could last as a standard for that long, because that doesn’t fit the context of his comment. He can correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[A1423]

I don’t think it was a good choice to do that. I think something with “pro” in its name should have more ram to start because of what the pro moniker insinuates. The base models sell and that’s likely the biggest driver in its retention and longevity of starting with 8gb of ram. I always favor more power than I need, not less. So I’m not even starting at the base, but it’s still a good option for a lot of people. I would make the supposition that we will see a some form of standardization of ram, with a minor increase in cost over the next few years.

 

[Kal Madda]

It matters because Apple is now aiming for 2030 carbon neutral, minimum e-waste future. Bare minimum is to produce no low spec devices or better under-spec devices when their goal is sustainability. They want other companies to copy them in their way to better world so they should lead with an example.
Because as things are standing now it looks like Apple use this “sustainability” formula only to get better profit.

And no matter whether the base spec were 8GB, 16GB or even possibly 24GB, it wouldn’t suddenly make trying to use a laptop for several decades a good idea. Carbon neutrality doesn’t equal “computers now last two decades, and aren’t practically unusable and retro by then”. What they’re talking about is the production of their devices, and recycling materials from old ones. If they efficiently recycle materials from old machines, that cuts down on eWaste, and it has nothing to do with base RAM specs, since the CPU and other hardware will be a bottleneck long before you make it to over two decades. I have an older Mac sitting around, and it doesn’t run most modern software due to the CPU.