Is 8GB of RAM Enough for MacBook Pro?

[Chuckeee]

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.

The Pro moniker is just another marketing label now. If you really think 8GB does not work as a baseline level, then that should apply to any new Apple computer, independent of “pro”, “air”, “LE” or “supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” labels that marketing department sticks on to the name.

My personal belief is 8GB is sufficient while perhaps not being optimal for some users. And it is up to users to Buy more RAM if they think they need more. The price Apple charge for RAM is another issue.

 

[Kal Madda]

The Pro moniker is just another marketing label now. If you really think 8GB does not work as a baseline level, then that should apply to any new Apple computer, independent of “pro”, “air”, “LE” or “supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” labels that marketing department sticks on to the name.

My personal belief is 8GB is sufficient while perhaps not being optimal for some users. And it is up to users to Buy more RAM if they think they need more. The price Apple charge for RAM is another issue.

I agree, though I wouldn’t say that “Pro” is just a marketing term with no substance behind it, because the Pro devices do genuinely offer hardware that is more useful for certain types of pros. But I’d also argue that not all Pros need a “Pro” labeled device, there are lots of pros who use Air models. I think the problem is that some people want to try to gatekeep what kind of computer user is a “pro” user and what isn’t. There are lots of different kinds of pros with vastly different needs. And since this base spec is using the normal M3 chip, I think it should come with the same configurations you can get in the Air or the iPads which will use the M3. It would make no sense to artificially limit the base configurations of the M3 on the base configuration MacBook Pro, just because someone doesn’t feel that spec is “pro” enough…

 

[Agincourt]

I also think we need to agree that reducing base specs isn't done to save consumers money. It doesn't cost Apple $200 to upgrade from 8 to 16. They absolutely didn't decide to create a cheaper model so that it costs them less to manufacture. This always only goes one way, and that's exponentially more money in their pocket by creating as many price tiers as possible.

That's why they will NEVER set the base stats above 8 GB. Since converting to the M series chips everything froze with the lower tier computers which five years ago had many pro options. I've got a 2018 Mac mini upgraded to 64 GB RAM and now the max is half that. iMac likewise maxed out at 128 GB and now it's only 24! 30 years every new generation was more capable than the last, but now they've decided to stunt the consumer market and create a giant chasm between them and the pro models in both price and abilities.

 

[Kal Madda]

I also think we need to agree that reducing base specs isn't done to save consumers money. It doesn't cost Apple $200 to upgrade from 8 to 16. They absolutely didn't decide to create a cheaper model so that it costs them less to manufacture. This always only goes one way, and that's exponentially more money in their pocket by creating as many price tiers as possible.

That's why they will NEVER set the base stats above 8 GB. Since converting to the M series chips everything froze with the lower tier computers which five years ago had many pro options. I've got a 2018 Mac mini upgraded to 64 GB RAM and now the max is half that. iMac likewise maxed out at 128 GB and now it's only 24! 30 years every new generation was more capable than the last, but now they've decided to stunt the consumer market and create a giant chasm between them and the pro models in both price and abilities.

First of all, company’s offer base specs that appeal to the majority of their base spec customers. The base spec configurations sell very well, and customer satisfaction is very high. Clearly most base spec customers like the 8GB configurations. If enough of the base spec customers weren’t happy with 8GB, then Apple would be increasing it to sell more Macs and keep happy customers. Especially if we believe that Apple is only motivated by dollar signs and no data about their base spec users. But that clearly isn’t the case. 8GB of RAM is also a common base spec in Windows PCs as well. Only some more expensive Windows PCs don’t offer an 8GB base spec. And more options are better, generally when these companies change base specs to a higher spec on their products, they also up the price tag. And yes, this includes Windows PC manufacturers as well. The only ones who save money in that scenario are the ones who would have upgraded their specs above the base spec, and even then, it’s only a half saving on that upgrade. Rarely if ever even does any computer company up the base configuration without also upping the cost for it.

Second, the M-series Macs handle RAM quite differently from Intel systems. They’re more efficient on their RAM usage. And you can get 128GB of RAM on M-Series Macs. And nothing has been stunted, the Macs are improving quite a bit every year. I’d argue that they’re improving far more than they were on a per-year basis. Heck, the M3 is even introducing a brand new, more efficient Graphics standard that will boost performance yet further. Again, this laser focus on one spec is just really bizarre, and trying to argue the Macs haven’t advanced exponentially in the last few years is just untenable…

 

[Chuckeee]

I also think we need to agree that reducing base specs isn't done to save consumers money. It doesn't cost Apple $200 to upgrade from 8 to 16. They absolutely didn't decide to create a cheaper model so that it costs them less to manufacture. This always only goes one way, and that's exponentially more money in their pocket by creating as many price tiers as possible.

Yes, Apple greed a primary motivation for 8GB.

Apple does this since 8GB is sufficient (it runs) and most Apple users (not better informed MR members) don’t know/understand the limitations and are satisfied. Although, most are often ignorant of the limitations of their systems.

Many others (including myself) just hold our nose and open our wallets and pay for the configuration we need. This works for me since I replace my personal computer about every 10 years (based on my personal history since 1982 starting with an Apple //c). Although my employers have replaced my work machines for me at a more frequent rate

It will only change if there is a mass exodus from Apple to other competitors. Note, this isn’t necessarily the same as reduced Apple sales, if the whole sector is in decline. Or the OS and basic office apps get so bloated that they will refuse to run on a base configuration.

 

[Kal Madda]

Yes, Apple greed a primary motivation for 8GB.

Apple does this since 8GB is sufficient (it runs) and most Apple users (not better informed MR members) don’t know/understand the limitations and are satisfied. Although, most are often ignorant of the limitations of their systems.

Many others (including myself) just hold our nose and open our wallets and pay for the configuration we need. This works for me since I replace my personal computer about every 10 years (based on my personal history since 1982 starting with an Apple //c). Although my employers have replaced my work machines for me at a more frequent rate

It will only change if there is a mass exodus from Apple to other competitors. Note, this isn’t necessarily the same as reduced Apple sales, if the whole sector is in decline. Or the OS and basic office apps get so bloated that they will refuse to run on a base configuration.

I don’t know that I’d characterize it as greed per se. All businesses make decisions based on a balance of providing a product that is good for their customers and also making money while doing it. And a business can both care for their customers and also care about turning a profit, they’re not mutually exclusive ideas as some make it out to be. And in this case, I think Apple is making a decision to sell a product that is good for their customers, and still makes them some profit. None of the rest of the hardware on these new base-spec MacBook Pros changed other than the chip, so who knows what kind of a margin they may just barely be eeking out on these base spec configurations, considering the base specs from the last two years were $400 more expensive. I’m assuming they may be slightly cheaper to produce now due to production increases, but still, you’ve got all that other expensive hardware like the display panels which wouldn’t depreciate in cost that dramatically. We simply don’t know what production costs look like. I’m sure they’re lower than retail price of course, but that’s to be expected since they do need to turn a profit.

And as I said before, if most base spec customers wanted 16GB of RAM, I’m sure Apple would give it to them. But most people are perfectly happy with the 8GB models.

Also, I’d say plenty of base spec customers are well informed about the limitations, but the limitations have zero impact on their workflow. If I were editing 8K video all the time, then I’d be buying a 16GB configuration. But 8GB performs great for my heavy graphic design, 3D modeling/sculpting, and moderate video editing workflow. I haven’t managed to make it stutter once.

 

[Mega ST]

Intentional or not I see it as a factory installed bottleneck that will make you buy another computer before too long and before the physical life of the machine ends. Apple Vision Pro, iPhone photo sizes, software everything points to upcoming much bigger file sizes, much more storage and RAM needed and such. Wait for future OSs and AI. I could even imagine that 8 or 16 megs might cost almost the same when you are such a huge manufacturer.
Upgradeable systems would be best.

 

[Kal Madda]

Intentional or not I see it as a factory installed bottleneck that will make you buy another computer before too long and before the physical life of the machine ends. Apple Vision Pro, iPhone photo sizes, software everything points to upcoming much bigger file sizes, much more storage and RAM needed and such. Wait for future OSs and AI. Upgradeable systems would be best.
I could even imagine that 8 or 16 megs might cost almost the same when you are such a huge manufacturer.

It isn’t really a bottleneck, it’s an additional option. If people are worried it won’t be enough, they can just buy some more… Apple has a much better idea than we do about how much their system’s will use of their computers’ resources in the future, and if they were worried it wouldn’t run their planned future features, then I doubt they’d be making this configuration. Most people upgrade their laptop every 5 years or so, so for many that isn’t really a big concern, and for those who want to go longer between updates, they can just buy higher specs if they want. But all Macs have about an 8 years macOS support life, so I doubt that most people will use it beyond that. And I think my 8GB Mac will last me fine until it is no longer supported by the new OS updates.

 

[ric22]

Intentional or not I see it as a factory installed bottleneck that will make you buy another computer before too long and before the physical life of the machine ends. Apple Vision Pro, iPhone photo sizes, software everything points to upcoming much bigger file sizes, much more storage and RAM needed and such. Wait for future OSs and AI. I could even imagine that 8 or 16 megs might cost almost the same when you are such a huge manufacturer.
Upgradeable systems would be best.

Absolutely. Quite how any human being could intentionally down vote this comment defies comprehension.

 

[Kal Madda]

Absolutely. Quite how any human being could intentionally down vote this comment defies comprehension.

Are you saying I’m not a human because I disagree with you? Humans have differing opinions…

 

[chucker23n1]

Intentional or not I see it as a factory installed bottleneck that will make you buy another computer before too long and before the physical life of the machine ends.

Can't you make this argument for any spec?

Upgradeable systems would be best.

Upgradeable systems are more prone to mechanical failure, are thicker and heavier, and just aren't very sexy. Very few people would actually want to buy an iPhone where you can upgrade the RAM and/or storage. And that's before we get to how much upgrading is practical: a few generations in, you need different connectors.

Yeah, you can make a cynical "Apple loves this, because they get to keep selling you new devices" argument. But also… I think (most) consumers love it, for better or worse.

 

[Kal Madda]

Can't you make this argument for any spec?

Upgradeable systems are more prone to mechanical failure, are thicker and heavier, and just aren't very sexy. Very few people would actually want to buy an iPhone where you can upgrade the RAM and/or storage. And that's before we get to how much upgrading is practical: a few generations in, you need different connectors.

Yeah, you can make a cynical "Apple loves this, because they get to keep selling you new devices" argument. But also… I think (most) consumers love it, for better or worse.

Exactly. Where does this arbitrary standard end? Some could claim that a 16GB base spec is too limiting because it’s not as fast for their heavy 3D game development or animation workflow. Where is the line? A base spec should be determined based on what the majority of base spec customers want or need, and based on the high sales of the 8GB base spec and high customer satisfaction, 8GB of RAM seems to currently fill both of those criteria.

And totally agree about the advantages of a non-upgradable system. Not only are upgradable systems more prone to mechanical failure, make the device thicker and heavier, and aren’t commonly even upgraded by most customers in the first place, but they also are less power efficient, and slower.

 

[Mega ST]

It isn’t really a bottleneck, it’s an additional option. If people are worried it won’t be enough, they can just buy some more…

You can only prepare for your foreseeable requirements at the time of buying it. I know, future proofing might be an illusion anyway, but isn't it strange how you can insert huge memory cards for nothing but you can't replace batteries or add RAM?

 

[Kal Madda]

You can only prepare for your foreseeable requirements at the time of buying it. I know, future proofing might be an illusion anyway, but isn't it strange how you can insert huge memory cards for nothing but you can't replace batteries or add RAM?

A. You can replace batteries.
B. Most people just buy the RAM configuration they want upfront. Most people don’t upgrade the RAM in their computers, even when the system could be upgraded by the user, and upgradable systems have lots of downsides such as increased chance of mechanical failure, adding bulk and weight to computers, less power efficiency, less speed, etc. You wouldn’t get something as thin as the MacBook Air with the battery runtime it has if you tried to cram RAM cards and larger upgradable SSDs in there.

 

[chucker23n1]

Exactly. Where does this arbitrary standard end?

It is indeed arbitrary, but I think having the same base config for over a decade is outside the bounds of "arbitrary".

 

[Kal Madda]

It is indeed arbitrary, but I think having the same base config for over a decade is outside the bounds of "arbitrary".

There’s nothing wrong with having the same base spec for over a decade if it still works great and is making base spec customers happy, which it is…

 

[Mega ST]

A. You can replace batteries.
B. Most people just buy the RAM configuration they want upfront. Most people don’t upgrade the RAM in their computers, even when the system could be upgraded by the user, and upgradable systems have lots of downsides such as increased chance of mechanical failure, adding bulk and weight to computers, less power efficiency, less speed, etc. You wouldn’t get something as thin as the MacBook Air with the battery runtime it has if you tried to cram RAM cards and larger upgradable SSDs in there.

A. I meant upgrade the battery yourself like it was easily possible in one of my ancient Apples.
B. My sister has an older Apple laptop that recently got upgraded with some aftermarket installed huge internal storage. It will be good for years again. There is a whole industry specialised in upgrading people's Apple products now. It must be possible?
Efficiency should always be a good balance between the hardware needs and the customer usability, which includes upgradeability.

 

[Kal Madda]

A. I meant upgrade the battery yourself like it was easily possible in one of my ancient Apples.
B. My sister has an older Apple laptop that recently got upgraded with some aftermarket installed huge internal storage. It will be good for years again. There is a whole industry specialised in upgrading people's Apple products now. It must be possible?
Efficiency should always be a good balance between the hardware needs and the customer usability, which includes upgradeability.

A. A user can upgrade the battery. You just remove the bottom plate on the Mac, and there are a few connectors you remove.
B. I had an older MacBook that was user upgradable, and it still is impractical to use today despite the upgrades. The reason being is lack of support for new versions of macOS, and the CPU (which is the reason for lack of support for newer versions of macOS). The CPU will be a bottleneck whether you upgrade RAM and storage or not. It’s generally not very practical to use a decade-old computer. Most people upgrade every 5 years or so.
C. User upgradeability is not a part of normal customer usability. Upgrading is upgrading, using is using. I’m not using my computer when I’m in the process of swapping its RAM card or something. And again, most people do not upgrade their computers, so why add all of the downsides of upgradable systems if practically non of the people buying them will use the upgradeability? It’s better to just offer a product that’s more efficient, faster and lighter for the vast majority of customers who just want to buy the spec they want in the first place.

 

[ric22]

Can't you make this argument for any spec?



Upgradeable systems are more prone to mechanical failure, are thicker and heavier, and just aren't very sexy. Very few people would actually want to buy an iPhone where you can upgrade the RAM and/or storage. And that's before we get to how much upgrading is practical: a few generations in, you need different connectors.

Yeah, you can make a cynical "Apple loves this, because they get to keep selling you new devices" argument. But also… I think (most) consumers love it, for better or worse.

How much thicker precisely do you envisage an upgradable MacBook Pro being?

 

[Kal Madda]

How much thicker precisely do you envisage an upgradable MacBook Pro being?

We could always look at the 2012 MacBook Pro to see an example of how thick an upgradable Mac would be. It’s quite a bit thicker, and heavier I might add.

Also, you’d likely take a substantial hit on performance, battery runtime, might not be able to pack as good of a sound system, etc. due to the footprint of those huge RAM cards.

Also, it should be noted that since the iPads also use the M-Series chips, you’d need to either try to cram RAM cards into an iPad, or have two different versions of the same chip, which would be silly.

 

[Chuckeee]

How much thicker precisely do you envisage an upgradable MacBook Pro being?

I think you need to differentiate between RAM and SSD. Based on the Mac Studio we can see (via tear down videos) the amount of space required for Apple to make SSD replaceable*. I would guess it’s about ¼” thickness.

* replaceable is not the same as affordable

 

[Agincourt]

Upgradeable systems are more prone to mechanical failure, are thicker and heavier, and just aren't very sexy. Very few people would actually want to buy an iPhone where you can upgrade the RAM and/or storage. And that's before we get to how much upgrading is practical: a few generations in, you need different connectors.

iPhones aren't akin to computers. Those tend to last less than five years and are physically much smaller in comparison, so the argument about that doesn't compare.

Laptops... yes you want them light, but the difference of an ounce isn't going to make or break a pro model computer. Desktops especially aren't concerned with weight because you're not routinely lugging them around, so making them non upgradable further works against such arguments. I think that Apple got the 2013 MacBook Pro correct in having a replaceable SSD module and built in RAM, given how difficult it would be to cram in modules. However given the SSD has a limited number of cycles, it only makes sense to make that modular.

And the argument here isn't so much that people would WANT to upgrade a computer eight years down the road, but rather that you're not given any options to do so... thus you must anticipate either replacing your computer five years later or paying a premium for that extra 8 GB RAM you probably will need later but can't make use of now.

 

[Kal Madda]

iPhones aren't akin to computers. Those tend to last less than five years and are physically much smaller in comparison, so the argument about that doesn't compare.

Laptops... yes you want them light, but the difference of an ounce isn't going to make or break a pro model computer. Desktops especially aren't concerned with weight because you're not routinely lugging them around, so making them non upgradable further works against such arguments. I think that Apple got the 2013 MacBook Pro correct in having a replaceable SSD module and built in RAM, given how difficult it would be to cram in modules. However given the SSD has a limited number of cycles, it only makes sense to make that modular.

And the argument here isn't so much that people would WANT to upgrade a computer eight years down the road, but rather that you're not given any options to do so... thus you must anticipate either replacing your computer five years later or paying a premium for that extra 8 GB RAM you probably will need later but can't make use of now.

Upgradable components take up more space that can be used for other things such as extra battery capacity, a better sound system, more ports, etc. They also make the system thicker.

And most people don’t upgrade internal components on their computers. Sure, some do, but it’s a very small minority. Why add all of the downsides for everyone to benefit a few who might make use of upgradable internal components?

Desktops may not have these downsides to the same level, but they’re using the same chips as the MacBooks, so they have the same system. It wouldn’t make much sense to have two totally different systems with the same chip name. And again, it wouldn’t make much sense to do since very few people would use it in the first place.

Again, one of the big advantages of M-Series chips performance-wise, is the fact they use unified memory and high speed soldered storage. Take those things away, and you’ll end up taking a performance hit, and reducing power efficiency as well.

 

[Agincourt]

Upgradable components take up more space that can be used for other things such as extra battery capacity, a better sound system, more ports, etc. They also make the system thicker.

And most people don’t upgrade internal components on their computers. Sure, some do, but it’s a very small minority. Why add all of the downsides for everyone to benefit a few who might make use of upgradable internal components?

Desktops may not have these downsides to the same level, but they’re using the same chips as the MacBooks, so they have the same system. It wouldn’t make much sense to have two totally different systems with the same chip name. And again, it wouldn’t make much sense to do since very few people would use it in the first place.

Again, one of the big advantages of M-Series chips performance-wise, is the fact they use unified memory and high speed soldered storage. Take those things away, and you’ll end up taking a performance hit, and reducing power efficiency as well.

Evidence.

Evidence. Also I think most people wouldn't want to replace their entire computer because their SSD went bad. Please cite those that would want to replace an entire computer over a single component. I had a 17 MBP where the power module went bad and I replaced it for only $150 (With labor) instead of replacing the whole computer. Please cite where the majority of people would want to replace the whole computer over one component.

Evidence.

Evidence. Most sources indicate 32 GB of modular memory is superior to 8 GB NON UPGRADABLE '1 is 2' Apple magic memory that costs $200 USD per 8 GB. Also if someone wanted to upgrade to 16 GB over their built in 8 GB... please specify how they may do so without replacing the whole computer. If it literally costs Apple $200 USD to upgrade just 8 GB whereas most modules do 32 GB at a time for that, then Apple has done something incredibly wrong.

 

[Kal Madda]

Evidence.

Evidence. Also I think most people wouldn't want to replace their entire computer because their SSD went bad. Please cite those that would want to replace an entire computer over a single component. I had a 17 MBP where the power module went bad and I replaced it for only $150 (With labor) instead of replacing the whole computer. Please cite where the majority of people would want to replace the whole computer over one component.

Evidence.

Evidence. Most sources indicate 32 GB of modular memory is superior to 8 GB NON UPGRADABLE '1 is 2' Apple magic memory that costs $200 USD per 8 GB. Also if someone wanted to upgrade to 16 GB over their built in 8 GB... please specify how they may do so without replacing the whole computer. If it literally costs Apple $200 USD to upgrade just 8 GB whereas most modules do 32 GB at a time for that, then Apple has done something incredibly wrong.

1. You’ve created a strawman. Plenty of other parts on the Macs are user replaceable. The power modules are a separate component that is user replaceable (yes, even on newer Macs). The battery is user replaceable. Just because RAM and storage aren’t separate units doesn’t mean that none of the system is replaceable. RAM and SSD failures are extremely rare, so not likely to be a common part that needs replaced within the normal 8 year service life of the device. If RAM and SSD failures were so common, then how come people aren’t having these issues with their iPhones and iPads en masse? Many of those are still running 10+ years later with no RAM or SSD failures. And if either of those were to fail, it could be fixed by just swapping the motherboard. Lots of PCs use integrated graphics that is soldered on the motherboard, and when their graphics fail (a much more common thing to fail than RAM or SSDs) people have to replace the computer or replace the motherboard, so not really any different from that perspective. PC users have to do that if their integrated graphics fail, Mac users have to do that on the far more rare instance where their SSD or RAM fails…

2. Nobody said that 8GB M-series RAM is equivalent to 32GB Intel RAM, it’s more like 16GB in performance. Most people just buy the specs they want, and then update their machine to a newer model after however many years of use they want to use their computer for (for most that is 5 years). Also, I don’t need to “prove” that RAM is replaceable in M-Series Macs, because that’s not my argument… My argument is that M-Series Macs don’t need user upgradable RAM, and most users benefit from the advantages of the M-Series system without RAM needing to be upgradable. The vast majority of Mac users are not replacing their RAM and SSDs… You’re essentially expecting Apple to make their device to meet the whims of a very very small portion of their users, at the detriment of the benefits the current system provides such as a slimmer and lighter laptop, extra space for battery, sound system ports, etc. It makes no sense to do this when very few people would even use it in the first place.