Sounds like a bloody bargain compared to Apple!!
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
No, many of these competitors charge more than Apple, and for only a RAM upgrade with nothing else being changed.
But that's not entirely accurate. The 2014 Mac mini supports macOS Monterrey which was released in 2021 and the base model came with 4GB of soldered RAM. That's 7 years of OS upgrades. That's about what is typical for most Macs.
Are you running the best version of macOS for your Mac?
Find out what version of macOS your Mac can run with our macOS compatibility checker & which version of macOS is best for your Mac
www.macworld.com
In that particular case, yes but that's not always the case. With this Alienware model, going from 16GB to 32GB is $150. If I want to go from 16GB to 64GB that's $500. So that's in line with everyone else.
| Dell USA
www.dell.com
Ya, Apple is pretty well known for their long support life for their hardware, this is another reason I think 8GB is plenty future proof. Apple isn’t likely to stop supporting it with new software updates before it’s approximate 8 year support life just due to RAM spec, especially when a couple years ago they were still supporting a 7-8 year old computer with 4GB of RAM. This is also another reason why I don’t mind paying more for a Mac, this plus macOS, the better performance on M-Series chips, the unrivaled battery runtime, the display quality, the sound system, etc. And consider the fact that many computers that weren’t 8 years old didn’t receive the Windows 11 update. And Windows 10 will be phased out next year. So Macs offer great value for their support life.But that's not entirely accurate. The 2014 Mac mini supports macOS Monterrey which was released in 2021 and the base model came with 4GB of soldered RAM. That's 7 years of OS upgrades. That's about what is typical for most Macs.
Are you running the best version of macOS for your Mac?
Find out what version of macOS your Mac can run with our macOS compatibility checker & which version of macOS is best for your Mac
I totally get what you’re talking about. A month or two ago I went around comparison shopping when these debates first sprang up, and much of the competition is charging almost the same like $150 for an upgrade from 8 to 16, the same, or higher such as Microsoft who charges about double what Apple does. And none of these competitor’s PC offerings have anything close to the same kind of battery runtime, most have inferior displays, and I can’t speak for the sound system, but that’s likely inferior as well. I think based on competitor pricing, what Apple is offering is actually a pretty nice bargain. Plus, part of the cost of the Mac covers the development cost of macOS, which isn’t bought with licenses, etc. You should factor into the upfront cost that you’re also buying around 8 years of macOS versions. Even at a very low cost for the OS license, say $50 a year, that would add up to $400 worth of updates with that taken into account.In that particular case, yes but that's not always the case. With this Alienware model, going from 16GB to 32GB is $150. If I want to go from 16GB to 64GB that's $500. So that's in line with everyone else.
| Dell USA
www.dell.com
Last edited:
And that's why I now go with the base model instead of chasing specs. I got caught in the 8GB is NOT enough with my 2018 i5 Mini so I upgraded the RAM from 8GB to 32GB. My M2 base model Mini is twice as fast as the Intel Mini with a 1/4 of RAM size.
The 2018 Mini will lose support within Apple's support timeline whether it has 8GB of RAM or 64GB. When it's time to get cutoff, memory size won't be the deciding factor. Now if I want to go the unsupported route and install a version of macOS that the 2018 Mini wasn't supposed to support, that's a different matter because things can go wrong and can break with an unsupported OS.
I have done that and installed macOS Ventura on my 2012 Mini with 8GB of RAM. But that is an entirely different subject. Suffice it to say, the best value is going with a base model then trading it in for a newer model or giving it to someone who might need a computer.
Speaking of Apple II price comparisons, below is a Commodore computer ad from 1981 comparing the retail price and features of their machine against Apple and IBM products. I'm not sure how accurate the comparison is as far as actual purchase prices as computers were commonly discounted back then, some more than others.
In today's dollars, $995 would be around $3,300. $1,929 and $1,910 would each be around $6,300.
Exactly, I totally agree! 👍🏻. Base spec Apple devices perform great! My 8GB M1 Mac totally clobbers my older 16GB Mac, and outperforms several other 16GB Intel systems I’ve used.
So for $150 more you get 16GB more? But on an 8GB Apple model it costs $200 for 8GB extra. Are you saying that's in line due to the 8GB=16GB Apple logic? 😉 (Not to mention $150 being less than $200)In that particular case, yes but that's not always the case. With this Alienware model, going from 16GB to 32GB is $150. If I want to go from 16GB to 64GB that's $500. So that's in line with everyone else.
| Dell USA
www.dell.com
Plenty of PC manufacturers are charging around the same, the same, or more for RAM upgrades than Apple is. That includes upgrades from 8GB to 16GB. And Apple didn’t say 8GB=16GB, you should stop repeating falsehoods.
Last edited:
Microsoft charges nearly double what Apple does for a RAM upgrade from 16GB to 32GB. Apple charges $400 for an upgrade from 18GB to 36GB on an M3 Pro chip MacBook Pro, while Microsoft charges $730 to upgrade from 16GB to 32GB. And all that Microsoft is changing is the RAM, the SSD doesn’t change, nor does the CPU, so it’s a fair comparison.
Attachments
In the UK the Surface Studio starts with 16GB, so I can't say what it costs to upgrade to get there. Still costs less than the entry MacBook Pro, for what that's worth. On cheaper devices, Microsoft double the RAM and storage hand in hand.
Obviously I would concur that it's equally offensive for any manufacturer to charge a 1,000% markup on RAM, if they insist on soldering it down. It's the kind of price hike we suffer on phones, I know, but in a much larger device it's even worse.
And going from 16GB to 64GB is $500 on the Alienware. Again, it's in line with what other companies are charging. If you want to go from 36GB to 64GB with this MacBook Pro, Apple wants $400 more but you start out with more than 16GB on the Alienware.
Buy MacBook Pro
Discover the MacBook Pro laptop with the M4 family of chips, built for Apple Intelligence. Get credit when you trade in an eligible Mac. Buy now.
www.apple.com
However if someone doesn't want a Windows machine they'll buy a Mac. I can buy a Dell 13" XPS with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB for $799 but something tells me it's not going to install macOS Sonoma.
Agreed, and the Surface Studio also doesn’t have the same quality display, the same battery runtime, performance, sound system, etc. The MacBook Pro is pretty much superior to the Microsoft Surface Studio in about every way, so of course it should be more expensive to begin with. But starting price doesn’t change the fact that in order to upgrade RAM with Microsoft, you pay nearly double for the same upgrade as the MacBook Pro. And there are plenty of other examples of PCs charging the same or more for RAM upgrades as Apple does.
Last edited:
And the Surface Studio also doesn’t have the same beautiful high quality display, doesn’t have even close to the same battery runtime as the MacBook Pro, same performance to power efficiency, is thicker, heavier, and likely doesn’t even have as good of a sound system either. The MacBook Pro is basically superior in just about every way, so of course its starting price should be higher than the Surface Studio. Plus, the MacBook Pro obviously offers macOS, unlike the Surface Studio which uses Windows… The starting price point doesn’t change the fact that Microsoft charges nearly double for the same RAM upgrade on their machine as Apple does…
Also, Microsoft charges $300 for upgrading from 8GB RAM to 16GB RAM on the Surface Pro 9 with an i5. And the storage on both is 256GB (also CPU doesn’t change either). Where an upgrade for the M3 MacBook Pro from 8GB RAM with 512GB SSD to 16GB RAM with 512GB SSD is $200. So Apple’s upgrade is cheaper, and also has double the storage in both cases. And once you spec a Surface Pro 9 with an i5, 16GB RAM and 256GB SSD, you’re paying almost the same as you would for an M3 MacBook Pro with an M3, 8GB RAM, and double the storage at 512GB. And the MacBook Pro has vastly superior hardware, the only spec that’s higher on the Surface Pro 9 at that point would be RAM, but with the kind of thermal throttling you run into on a Surface Pro, that won’t be that much of an advantage, plus the MacBook has a bigger and better quality display, a higher performance M3 CPU, much better battery runtime, better sound system, and it’s an actual laptop, not a tablet trying to cram laptop components into the shell of a tablet with an additional $140 Surface Pro Keyboard required to use it like a laptop. So looks like again, Apple is offering more value and a cheaper RAM upgrade compared to a competitor.
Last edited:
Which Micirsoft product are you pricing? Below is an example of a Surface Laptop Studio 2 and the price difference between 16GB RAM and 32GB RAM is $400 (or $254 with discount) and that $400 (or $254) also includes nearly twice the SSD storage.
It was a Microsoft Surface Studio 2 I believe. I may still have the tab up. And there’s another example of Microsoft charging at least the same.
Here's a very clear example that Apple isn't alone selling overpriced memory. If you want to go from 32GB to 64GB on this ThinkPad X1 Yoga it'll cost you $680 but hey it's on sale now for the low, low price of $447.
Customize Your Lenovo Device
Use Lenovo's Configurator to customize your device and make it perfect for your needs. Choose specs, features, and accessories to create your ideal device.
www.lenovo.com
What?But that's not entirely accurate. The 2014 Mac mini supports macOS Monterrey which was released in 2021 and the base model came with 4GB of soldered RAM. That's 7 years of OS upgrades. That's about what is typical for most Macs.
Are you running the best version of macOS for your Mac?
Find out what version of macOS your Mac can run with our macOS compatibility checker & which version of macOS is best for your Mac
I have a 2017 mini and that used RAM modules. I literally replaced them and increased an otherwise unremarkable computer from 8 GB to 64 GB RAM.
The storage... that was fixed, but external options are viable.
What am I using it for?
Um... I suppose I just maxed out the RAM for the sake of it. With so little video graphics capacity this machine isn't so viable for gaming and wouldn't be that great with solid works. However if Apple dictated this I'd have spent the better part of $800 upgrading this and have no options moving into the future. I turned this 'casual' Mini into something vastly different because I had the OPTION to upgrade!
Attachments
Last edited:
No it means that those such as I will continue to use our Intel machines until they break down. When my 2011 iMac can be pushed to 32 GB RAM and 1+ TB storage I absolutely cannot justify spending such an outrageous sum for a new iMac with lower specs than one from a decade ago.
And you’re free to stick with an outdated Mac as long as you wish, but the newer Macs offer a lot of value. The M-Series chips are a major performance improvement over Intel chips, and most people don’t need 64GB of RAM, especially with how efficiently Macs with M-Series chips use RAM. When comparing against competitors’ pricing, it doesn’t seem like Apple’s prices are “outrageous”.
Okay so you're bragging that new machines can perform the most basic functions of the old G4 PC processors for the same price of the day?
Okay then. My 'outdated' 2019 MBP is doing all the functions I require of it and I'm perfectly happy keeping it because Apple's newest computers are too expensive in comparison to the generation which came before it.
I guess we're all happy with what we got.