I saw this on Reddit today, look at that swap used, 8GB base ram is ridiculous. This is also an M1 Air apparently.
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 saw this on Reddit today, look at that swap used, 8GB base ram is ridiculous. This is also an M1 Air apparently.
Ya, and you could make a screenshot like that for a 16GB model as well if you ran enough heavy things at once. A picture without context is meaningless. And it’s also irrelevant to whether or not 8GB is a good base spec for most base spec customers. Considering the high sales of the 8GB model, and the high customer satisfaction, 8GB is plenty for base spec.
I don't know what that user does but I know what I do. I have an old MB Pro from 2014 with 8GB. All I do is browse and watch movies. Whenever I look at activity monitor I have 1,2-2GB swap used. Is it destroying my SSD? Probably not, I checked the other day, after 9 years of usage it was in 37% health, the app said that this was okay. Still, if I had a new computer I wouldn't want simple things like browsing and watching movies to write on my SSD all day long.
When I got my MB the base SSD was 128, now it's 256. One day RAM will be 12 or 16 for the base too, just don't know when.
Last edited:
8GB M-Series Macs use RAM more efficiently. I can run Blender for 3D sculpting and modeling without touching swap. And that’s with several other apps open as well such as Safari with about a dozen tabs open, mail, Photos, and maybe a couple other system apps. Besides, swap memory isn’t anything to be afraid of, it’s a normal system function. 👍🏻
Does it run? Is its performance lagging significantly from an (uninformed) user perspective?
For many users that is all that matters. And how the user base leans is all that Apple cares about.
If you are better informed than typical Apple user lemmings & you care, just buy more (over priced) RAM.
I don’t know it’s right to call average users lemmings. Most average users aren’t obsessed with constantly checking their Activity Monitor to see what the RAM is doing. I happen to, but I’m not quite an average user. And considering that Microsoft is charging more for their RAM upgrades on their devices, I think Apple’s RAM pricing is perfectly fine.
I do agree with you that the performance and smooth operation of the computer is generally what’s important to average customers.
Lie. You made a baseless assertion and I challenged you on it. Okay so the power supplies and batteries are upgradable and replaceable, hence why they're a hot selling point and prominently featured when buying the computers... right? Actually no the laptop lines use USB charging and the power management systems are mounted into the logic board, so that one only applies to desktops. And the batteries in laptops aren't designed with the expectation of being upgraded or replaced, given how they've been glued into the computer. Yes they're fairly easy to remove, but it takes hours of time and really need to be performed by professionals. At that point the cost for a replacement easily rivals the cost of the computer 5+ years down the line. You're really grasping at straws when you're citing the battery and power as modular when Apple doesn't price gouge on such items because they tend to be standardized. The power unit on a bottom tier Mac mini isn't likely to be any different than a top tier mini... at least not enough Apple lists that as an upgrade option.
Jesus I hadn't even touched the argument you couldn't provide evidence for in the first place. You asserted that Apple went away from modularity because they take up physical space, are heavier, and fail more. I don't disagree with the first two, but you've still to offer evidence for the third. Just saying 'they rarely' fail is anecdotal at best and doesn't even touch upon the most important element of modularity... redundancy and upgradability. That's why most PC's don't integrate everything into the logic board. What's worse is that if the board gets damaged you can't recover what's on the SSD if it's soldered on, whereas you can remove a modular SSD and put it into a new computer.
What's more is that you're resorting to anecdotal evidence without backing your claims. What of the people that ARE suffering SSD failures or diminished performance due to degradation? Or what of those times when modularity did matter? I had a 17 MBP where the MagSafe needed replacement and I'd have had to replace the entire computer had it been integrated into the logic board. The thing about what fails and when is easier to cite when you've a repair technician that can identify what failed and where. However for most people when a computer dies they tend to replace it without ever knowing what was wrong in the first place. Of course my MBP graphics did die, as was common with my model. I could still upload something into my OS to override the dedicated GPU and use shared memory, but I already had my 2019 MBP and didn't need another by that point.
In short: making everything modular when possible gives a computer greater secondhand market value, which is good for consumers but bad for computer manufacturers like Apple. And when you can bake the 'important' specs like storage, processor capacity, and RAM directly into the board... why would they give that up?
Last edited:
Again you're totally missing the point!
If you're going to argue about what's 'good enough' one might as well delve into the abyss over how many graphics and CPU's you need for basic functions. Or whether you need a Retina display, or any countless details which most people don't need. The point here is that Apple is a premium computer brand and as such is expected to at least be on par with its competitors when it comes to the performance specs per given price point. And right now Apple is artificially setting limits on RAM and storage not because these legitimately cost them more to add to their machines, but because it pressures people to pay a premium over fairly cheap components.
You seem to be ranting off about what people don't need when you should be asking what Apple should be providing for the prices they demand. The PC market often gives more than needed or offers upgradability because SSD's and RAM have plummeted in cost to manufacture to the point they almost don't matter anymore. And yet these are critical stats which can effectively bottleneck a computer's usability, thus why Apple built these in. For the explicit purpose of price gouging.
I'm not saying they don't have the right to do this, but you seem more determined to defend a trillion dollar company than consumers and the environment.
So? Nobody is disagreeing with that.
This isn't a useful screenshot without context of what they were doing.
Where’s my so-called “baseless assertion”? I said that upgradable systems use larger components that take up more space in a laptops chassis. Fact. Soldered components have less latency and higher power efficiency. Fact. And that most average Mac users aren’t upgrading their computers with RAM or SSDs. Another fact. For the average Mac user, the extra weight, bulk, loss of power efficiency, latency, etc. wouldn’t be worth trading for upgradeability they’d likely never use in the first place.
I didn’t say that upgradable parts always fail, or fail often, I said they are technically more prone to mechanical failure since they use a mechanical, non-permanent connection. This is simple logic. Upgradable parts rely on slots and cable connections. Slots can get dirty and cable connections can become compromised due to degrading cables, plugs wiggling loose, etc. I’ve actually seen several computers where RAM cards got a loose connection and then the computer wouldn’t boot properly, the RAM card slot had to be cleaned out. Soldered RAM doesn’t have this issue, because it’s directly connected, so no dirt or dust could get between it and the rest of the system and cause failure. I’ve also seen where the ribbon cable for connecting a SSD gets worn and needs replaced. When I replaced the SSD in my older MacBook, many people recommended replacing the cable for connecting the drive as well, because they can degrade over time. Soldered SSDs don’t really have to worry about lose or dirty connections in the same way, since they’re a direct part of the unit that’s soldered on.
As to the batteries, they’re simple enough for a user to replace, it doesn’t require an expert. I’ve replaced iPhone batteries. And with iPhones you don’t even have the easily removable bottom plate. You have to use a tool to pry up the display. Whereas the Macs battery replacement is about as simple as it was in 2012.
As to retrieving files, that’s what a Time Machine backup drive is for! The same could happen with an upgradable SSD, it could fail, and then you wouldn’t be able to retrieve your files off it. And neither are very prone to failure, but logically speaking, soldered SSDs are technically a bit more mechanically robust in its connection since it’s a non-removable soldered connection. There are no pin connectors, cables etc. that could go bad.
As to having to “replace the whole computer”, this isn’t true. If a component on the motherboard goes bad, you can replace the motherboard. Just like when integrated graphics go bad on a PC’s motherboard. And you can buy a replacement motherboard a lot cheaper than a whole other computer.
My argument is this: modularity at the expense of being able to make a slimmer laptop with better battery runtime, sound system, etc. with the extra space savings in it’s chassis is worse for most average consumers. They won’t be cracking open their computers anyways. So they lose the potential battery runtime improvements, slimmer form factor, better sound system, etc. that they will use, so that it could instead be used for accommodating upgradeable components that they will never use. This is a bad trade for most consumers.
Last edited:
First of all, I’m saying that 8G of RAM is more than good enough for most base users. Hence the high sales and high customer satisfaction. And Retina displays literally have visible (pun intended) improvements that can be enjoyed by everyone who buys these devices. Throwing more RAM at it would only benefit those who have heavier workflows and would currently not be base-spec customers. So in other words, this change wouldn’t really tangibly improve it for most current base-spec customers. They’d just be paying extra for extra RAM they’ll likely never use (either due to Apple raising the base spec by $100 to compensate for the higher base spec, which they’ve done before, or due to them not offering a yet cheaper option for 8GB of RAM).
All PC manufacturers charge for RAM upgrades. Nobody has an 8GB and 16GB RAM spec for the same computer at the same price. And Apple’s RAM upgrade pricing is cheaper than Microsoft’s. And plenty of other PC manufacturers charge about the same, the same, or more for RAM upgrades compared to Apple’s pricing.
And you’re the one making unsubstantiated claims. Do you have a copy of an internal memo where Apple executives discuss limiting it to 8GB in order to pressure consumers to “pay a premium” for more, or, since you don’t have this internal memo, is it possible Apple is basing their decision to sell 8GB base spec models on data they have on average base spec customer useage/workflow, and 8GB is plenty for most of their base spec customers? You keep saying your opinions of Apple’s motives as if they’re facts, but you have no unchallengeable evidence to back them up. Since we don’t have an internal memo from Apple, we can assume it’s one of a few possibilities, but those are assumptions, not facts. Personally, considering the high sales of the 8GB base spec, and high customer satisfaction, and since Apple is typically a data-driven company, I think it’s more logical that Apple is basing their decisions on data.
Last edited:
I still don't understand how and why so many miss this point? An average user who uses their computer whether Windows or a Mac for general stuff isn't going to need more than 8GB. I have a 2018 Mini and I upgraded the RAM myself to 32GB and I purchased a base model M2 Mini and the M2 is twice as fast as the 2018 mini with 4x the RAM.
I am now retired and do basic stuff with my Mac or Windows laptops. The only exception where my PC needs more than 8GB is for both of my gaming rigs which both have 32GB of memory and truth be told, I could probably get away with just 16GB. I also paid $465 for my M2 Mini so I don't care if it flames out in 7 years because I will buy the latest and greatest base model Mini when my M2 is no longer supported.
Now would I drop $1600 on a laptop Windows or Mac with only 8GB? Hell, no but 8GB is more than enough for the average casual user who wants to watch YT videos or read something on the internet or does online banking and some email stuff.
That is all cool and we like it. But that’s still no reason to produce PRO base lineup with RAM and SSD from yester year.
High sales of the current base spec and high customer satisfaction are reasons to produce a Pro base lineup with RAM and SSD from “yester year”. 👍🏻
I agree with you- a casual user who doesn't play games will be fine with 8GB, on the whole. In a device like yours that costs just $465 it seems fair. How that casual user that keeps their device for quite a long time will get on in say 6 years time is anyone's guess, due to the low RAM.
Like you say- $1600 (US) or $2100 (abroad) is a big hell no. That's just insulting to limit devices at that price to a 'pro' spec from 12 years ago, when they could double it for about 1% of the sale price. 🤦♂️
I'm assuming this poster has no evidence of customer satisfaction relating to RAM and storage sizes, as usual. Why would someone come on here fabricating things, or repeatedly claim things they cannot substantiate?
Last edited:
A. Mac customer satisfaction score: Mac sits at the top of the chart for consumer satisfaction | Cult of Mac
Nobody makes customer satisfaction numbers based on RAM specs. But if people are very satisfied with their laptop as a whole unit (which is what the numbers are about), then that logically includes the RAM.
B. Many here are pointing to the fact that stores stock far more base models than other configurations. Why would they be doing so if they weren’t selling well? Clearly they’re selling well enough for stores to favor keeping these models in stock vs the other high configurations. Hence, high sales. Unless all these stores are just stupid and overstocking models they can’t sell.
As to substantiating things, you can’t substantiate your accusation that Apple is only selling 8GB models to be stingy. That’s merely your opinion, yet you keep putting it out there as some form of truth claim. There’s also the possibility that their data suggests that 8GB is more than enough for their base spec customers, and their base spec customers are very satisfied with their 8GB models…
Kal seems to like disagreeing with everything and yet refuses to counter the arguments with evidence. Storage and RAM nowadays are the major limiting factor in whether a computer is viable 5+ years down the road, storage at least offering some outlets to offset the limitations. Now that RAM is baked into the computer that's all it can ever be.
Please for the love of god stop parroting Apple's '1 = 2' argument because it's been proven wrong countless times. An Apple with 8 GB RAM will outperform a PC with equal specs largely because of there being less overhead, but that 8 GB limitation means that basic tasks is all it can ever do. And with an unknown number of read/write cycles on the SSD the resell value of that computer will be vastly lower.
All of this over paying only ~$30 USD extra on RAM for Apple and removing the opportunity to gouge users for $200 over a measly 8 GB more to future proof a computer. This is brilliant for their greed but terrible for the second hand market and the environment. I have two 'low-end' computers which are now more capable than the current iMac can ever be, neither of which would have been feasible for my needs today if the base RAM were fixed. My 2017 mini is stuck with only 128 GB of storage but external SSD allows me to overcome this limitation. It's got 64GB RAM I upgraded for only $200 USD.
Please for the love of god stop parroting Apple's '1 = 2' argument because it's been proven wrong countless times. An Apple with 8 GB RAM will outperform a PC with equal specs largely because of there being less overhead, but that 8 GB limitation means that basic tasks is all it can ever do. And with an unknown number of read/write cycles on the SSD the resell value of that computer will be vastly lower.
All of this over paying only ~$30 USD extra on RAM for Apple and removing the opportunity to gouge users for $200 over a measly 8 GB more to future proof a computer. This is brilliant for their greed but terrible for the second hand market and the environment. I have two 'low-end' computers which are now more capable than the current iMac can ever be, neither of which would have been feasible for my needs today if the base RAM were fixed. My 2017 mini is stuck with only 128 GB of storage but external SSD allows me to overcome this limitation. It's got 64GB RAM I upgraded for only $200 USD.
I’m the one “refusing to counter arguments with evidence”?!!! I literally have posted links to Mac customer satisfaction numbers. In other threads I’ve linked to Microsoft computers charging more for RAM upgrades, and several other PC manufacturers charging similar or higher prices (I haven’t taken the time to go back and get all the screenshots and links to share here, but I’ve referenced them). What non-subjective numbers have you linked to? You keep making these claims like “Apple is doing this for x reason” and “computers with x RAM configuration can only do “basic tasks””, all without any evidence to validate your arguments other than your subjective opinion. I don’t consider 3D sculpting/modeling in Blender a “basic task”, and I do that regularly on my base spec Mac, as well as graphic design work…
And I have pointed out that 8GB M-Series Macs perform better than 16GB Intel systems I’ve used. That’s my experience. Sorry if you don’t like it, but it is my experience. And I didn’t say that 1=2, that’s stupid. Nor did Apple. I’m also not saying that 8GB RAM on a M-Series Mac is the same as 16GB of RAM on an M-Series Mac, or for that matter, an Intel Mac or PC. I’m not dense, I know 8 isn’t the same as 16, and so does Apple. What I and Mr. Borchers are pointing out is that the overall system performance is probably roughly comparable based on my experience (can’t speak to Borchers experience or the factors informing his similar opinion). And, btw, this is an opinion I had before Borchers said anything about that, so I’m not just defending Apple, or drinking “Apple kool-aid”… 8GB M-Series Macs use RAM very efficiently, so the resulting performance isn’t noticeably worse than an average 16GB Intel system. I for one am not arguing that 8GB is exactly the same as 16GB, that’s a strawman argument.
Again, you keep repeating your subjective opinion as if it’s fact, making truth claims like “Apple’s motives are greed” and “Apple’s gouging customers” while not backing up any of your claims with anything other than your subjective opinion. You haven’t linked to a single number, study, internal Apple memo speaking to their motives, etc. Yet you deflect and accuse me of not being willing to back up my opinion with sources, when I, in fact, actually have sited non-subjective sources like with Mac Customer satisfaction, competitors’ RAM upgrade pricing, etc.
Last edited:
Perhaps not in macOS Sonoma, but give it a few more years, and 8 will feel cramped.
No it doesn't. You don't know if they're satisfied because of the specs or in spite of them. Would they be more satisfied if Mac started at 12? Of course they would. Do we know how much more? No, we do not.
People don’t generally say they’re satisfied with something when they’re not really satisfied with it. They’re satisfied with a product with certain specs. And you can’t say that all base spec customers would be more satisfied with more RAM. To many it makes no difference since 8GB is more than enough for their use-case. These people would be more likely to be indifferent, not necessarily “more satisfied”. Would they say “absolutely not, I don’t want that” probably not if it were at the same price. But I don’t see any reason to bump it up to 16GB when most base spec users seem to be satisfied with 8GB.
That's a running in a circle. It is not about what is still ok but more like what is more future proof. Given your arguments then 16GB/512GB for base price (currently asked for 8GB/256GB) would be even better and everyone else in a market for base line PRO laptops.
Last edited by a moderator:
This.
The question isn't how satisfied someone who buys an 8 GB $1,599 laptop is today. It's how they feel after three or four years.
8GB should be fine for 5 years at least. Most people buying the 8GB configurations can decide whether or not they think the word processing software, web browser, and other softwares they’re using will instantly start gobbling up more RAM in the next 5 years. I find that highly unlikely.
Can we all agree here that the question here isn't whether we the casual consumers need 1 TB storage or 32 GB RAM, but rather how much these things cost the manufacturers in comparison to 'fixed' expenses like the display and body construction?
Now the question here isn't how much it costs the manufacturers to build such extreme builds, but rather what they're artificially constricting in order to demand gigantic upgrade costs. The trends over the last decade have moved increasingly towards making computers fixed and unable to be user upgradable... at least as far as Apple wants.
Apple DOES NOT want us to be buying old 2013 computers with the same specs as today's models, they want us to be buying the newer ones as often as possible. That's their business model! Make consumers buy their products increasingly more often, and non upgradability is key to their success.
Now the question here isn't how much it costs the manufacturers to build such extreme builds, but rather what they're artificially constricting in order to demand gigantic upgrade costs. The trends over the last decade have moved increasingly towards making computers fixed and unable to be user upgradable... at least as far as Apple wants.
Apple DOES NOT want us to be buying old 2013 computers with the same specs as today's models, they want us to be buying the newer ones as often as possible. That's their business model! Make consumers buy their products increasingly more often, and non upgradability is key to their success.