Yeah, somehow I doubt that the old G4 PC processors could run modern software like Blender, Davinci Resolve, and Affinity Designer without breaking a sweat. My 8GB M1 Mac can… The 8GB M-Series models are clearly not comparable at all to the G4 PCs…
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
This topic now feels like a math lesson. In the end, Apple is shipping a Pro-branded premium computer in 2024 with 8GB RAM.
And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. 8GB is more than enough for many people.
Maybe it doesn't mean what you think it means?
The Surface Laptop Studio 2 was my example and the price difference was only $400 ($254 with discount) and that also included nearly twice the SSD storage.
The problem with some of these comparisons is that RAM price differences can vary even within the same brand. Another Microsoft example would be the 15" Surface Laptop 5 which shows a $600 ($500 with discount) price difference between the 16GB RAM/512GB SSD and 32GB RAM/1TB SSD versions.
Yeah, at least Apple’s more consistent with their RAM pricing. And the Surface Studio 2 is quite expensive, the MacBook Pro beats it in pretty much every way. Even the Microsoft Laptop Studio is pretty expensive, and the MacBook Air would probably give it a proper whooping. 👍🏻
The higher RAM levels might be in line (I haven't checked) but quite clearly, the 8GB pricing is 100% not in line. 🤷🏼♂️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
Microsoft charges $300 to upgrade from 8GB to 16GB, so Apple’s RAM upgrade pricing is actually cheaper than Microsoft’s
I was replying to the person that suggested it was massively expensive to upgrade that Windows PC to 16GB- how there was no sub-16GB option. I also prefer Mac. Why even reply to mention that?
If you knew someone who was unpleasant, and then met a second person that was unpleasant, using your logic would you conclude that neither was unpleasant?
Just because more than one company is taking the piss doesn't make it alright for all of them. I'm not going to dig it out again (it's already in this thread), but in Europe some of the major manufacturers literally charge just 30-40 euros to add 8GB. Making 100% profit on RAM is a lot more honourable than making 1,000% profit on it.
The key here in the USA is that all the companies overcharge for memory over the baseline specs. Some do more than others and when you look at different models they tend to even out in comparison.
Here in the US if I want an unlocked phone from Apple it's $30 extra unless I want a Pro series phone. Google doesn't charge extra for an unlocked phone. So if I want a new unlocked non-pro iPhone i'll have to pay $30 extra. So the choice becomes either pay Apple the extra $30 buy a pro series phone or buy an Android.
IIRC, the 2014 base Mini came with 4GB of RAM or you could order it directly from Apple with either 8 or 16GB but they all used soldered onboard memory with a fusion drive. And the 4GB base model even though many complained about the paltry amount of RAM and the up sell price from Apple made the 4GB model very popular.
It's Deja vu all over again.
-Yogi Berra
The last time I had a new Windows laptop was 3 years ago, and it was a top end Dell, and the memory and storage were expandable. Maybe things have gone downhill in America since, but they all deserve calling out on it, especially those that change $1600 domestic/$2100 foreign for a computer with a measly 8/512 offering.
Apple is more consistent but some authorized Apple retailers aren't as much so.
Some, for example, may discount an 8GB RAM laptop more than the 16GB RAM version thereby making the cost to go from 8GB to 16GB more than Apple's retail. The price of a 14" MacBook Pro with 8GB RAM at Apple is $1,599 and to go to 16GB is $200 more. However, the price of a 14” MacBook Pro with 8GB at B&H is $1,399 ($200 discount) but to go to 16GB is actually $350 more because they only discount the 16GB version by $50 instead of $200. Other stores may discount differently.
Once again, it may depend on the Microsoft device you are pricing. For example, to go from 8GB RAM to 16GB RAM with a Surface Laptop Go 3 or Surface Laptop 5 is $200 retail not $300. Authorized retailer pricing can vary too.
There’s nothing really to call out. What, that the companies offer competing pricing on RAM upgrades? Lots of high performance systems don’t use RAM cards, because they are slower than soldered RAM. The same is true with the storage. This added speed and performance also has added value over a generic and slow RAM card or M.2 SSD. And lots of companies are charging near the same, the same, or more for RAM upgrades as Apple is, so making it out as if Apple is “price-gouging” when they’re actually offering upgrades cheaper than competitors is not really a fair claim. And normally consumers don’t have as realistic of a view of the costs involved in a product as the company’s selling said product. We merely have guesses about how much Apple pays for their storage and RAM, no facts, no hard data. And even if we did have that data (we don’t) it still wouldn’t necessarily give us a clear or accurate picture of the costs involved when you have to consider the assembly costs, etc. Do they have to stop the assembly line and swap out tooling to produce lower quantities of these higher spec RAM configurations? And if so, how much does that affect labor cost, and other production costs? We just simply don’t know. What we can do is look and see that there are several competitors charging near the same, the same, or more for similar RAM upgrades…
Sure, but I was just saying that there are products Microsoft charges $300 for a RAM upgrade (I think it is the Surface Pro 9 with an i5 and 256GB on both if I remember correctly but I looked at several Surface products today). And that $200 upgrade is the same price that Apple charges, so it shows that Apple’s pricing is competitive with Microsoft’s in this respect. 👍🏻
In that case, both are at a discounted price, and the one’s just not as discounted as the other. That doesn’t mean that Apple’s RAM upgrade costs $350, just to clarify things (I don’t think you believe that, but I just wanted to clarify so we don’t have anyone trying to move the flag and claim Apple’s charging $350).
You have every right to call them out and you also have the right not to buy their product. I have already said I wouldn't pay $1600 with those specs. It is why I am very happy with my base model M2 Mini for a 1/4 of the price. There are many options in all of this.
I'm going to present a capstone argument and hopefully not come back to this thread again. We're all just repeating our points over and over again.
Apple has every right to set their specs and prices. Our satisfaction is not guaranteed. If we don't want to spend $1600 USD on an Apple laptop with only 8 GB RAM standard, they likely already know this and have since ignored our complaints. It's not uncommon for me to see Windows laptops selling for <$500 USD and those come with 16 GB, making Apple increasingly less prestigious. Once upon a time Apple was the gold standard of computers, but now they're gouging their customers and making their machines increasingly less user upgradable. Even the Mac Studio comes with SSD modules and they had the nerve to program the computer to reject new modules which didn't come through them!
Our primary point is that RAM effectively bottlenecks performance and that baking it into the motherboard means that Apple can dictate price better than any company which otherwise use modules. This was not done to enhance performance, it was so that they could charge $200 USD per 8 GB upgrades instead of buying your own 32 GB RAM on the market. This is great for Apple's greed but is terrible for an allegedly green company, because people are going to be more likely to buy a new computer when their's become obsolete that much faster.
Storage at least has an outlet in the form of external storage, but still comes in at extremely steep price because of Apple's greed. They have the right to do this, but we have every right to complain about it. Unless enough customers make their complaints known Apple WILL keep 8 GB the standard for a hundred years if allowed. 8 GB RAM is barely acceptable for most tablets and even some phones, but computers are significantly more expensive and expected to last much longer, thus higher base stats are simply expected.
Is this argument only a matter of us being unhappy? Sure, I won't dismiss this, however Apple has to take our satisfaction into account. Otherwise why would they have any reason to upgrade to higher standards? The fact they moved beyond upgradable RAM and SSD's in order to gouge their customers shows off the sheer, naked greed behind all their decisions.
Apple has every right to set their specs and prices. Our satisfaction is not guaranteed. If we don't want to spend $1600 USD on an Apple laptop with only 8 GB RAM standard, they likely already know this and have since ignored our complaints. It's not uncommon for me to see Windows laptops selling for <$500 USD and those come with 16 GB, making Apple increasingly less prestigious. Once upon a time Apple was the gold standard of computers, but now they're gouging their customers and making their machines increasingly less user upgradable. Even the Mac Studio comes with SSD modules and they had the nerve to program the computer to reject new modules which didn't come through them!
Our primary point is that RAM effectively bottlenecks performance and that baking it into the motherboard means that Apple can dictate price better than any company which otherwise use modules. This was not done to enhance performance, it was so that they could charge $200 USD per 8 GB upgrades instead of buying your own 32 GB RAM on the market. This is great for Apple's greed but is terrible for an allegedly green company, because people are going to be more likely to buy a new computer when their's become obsolete that much faster.
Storage at least has an outlet in the form of external storage, but still comes in at extremely steep price because of Apple's greed. They have the right to do this, but we have every right to complain about it. Unless enough customers make their complaints known Apple WILL keep 8 GB the standard for a hundred years if allowed. 8 GB RAM is barely acceptable for most tablets and even some phones, but computers are significantly more expensive and expected to last much longer, thus higher base stats are simply expected.
Is this argument only a matter of us being unhappy? Sure, I won't dismiss this, however Apple has to take our satisfaction into account. Otherwise why would they have any reason to upgrade to higher standards? The fact they moved beyond upgradable RAM and SSD's in order to gouge their customers shows off the sheer, naked greed behind all their decisions.
And how do you know that the switch to soldered RAM and storage was only for “greed” and not for the performance and efficiency enhancements soldered components offer? After all, several Windows PCs use soldered RAM and storage, and they’re charging around the same for upgrades. Soldered components offer a lot of advantages over cards with pin connections. And the faster RAM standards being used here don’t have any RAM card option. You assume your premise but provide no concrete evidence that the switch to soldered components was only for greed and not for the benefits to normal consumers (who aren’t interested in cracking open their computer to swap RAM cards and storage drives in the first place) in way of higher performance and power efficiency.
And with the way that Apple’s OSes use RAM 8GB is more than enough. Even brand new iPhones are only starting to get to 8GB of RAM, because they use RAM very efficiently. 8GB of RAM is plenty for a base spec. Blender runs great, so does Davinci Resolve and Affinity Photo and Affinity Designer. It’s more than enough for most people.
Again, you keep saying that greed is their motivation as a matter of fact, but have not presented any hard evidence to support your truth claim. Unless you have an internal memo from Apple corporate talking about how the only reason they chose to transition to soldered components was greed and had nothing to do with the performance and efficiency benefits, then you can’t make this claim as it it’s fact. It’s simply your opinion, and I think there’s enough data to prove it wrong, at least prove that it isn’t the simplest explanation. Between the performance and efficiency improvements the Unified Memory standard provides with a soldered connection, and the fact that very very few people ever crack open their computer to swap components themselves, it makes perfectly logical sense to trade upgradability which is useless to most users for greater performance and power efficiency, which will benefit everyone.
And nobody said you don’t have the right to be dissatisfied, but your dissatisfaction with the base spec doesn’t seem to reflect the majority of happy base-spec customers. And I also think it’s generally a bad idea to complain about something one’s never used. If you’ve never used an 8GB M-Series system, you may not have a completely accurate picture of its performance. This is why I wouldn’t review a product I’ve never used, things can be a lot different in real-world use then what it seems on paper. As the owner of an 8GB M1 Mac, and one who has also owned a 16GB Intel Mac, and used 16GB Intel Windows systems, I can tell you that 8GB on the M1 performs very comparably with 16GB Intel systems, and generally actually better.
At the end of the day, this is just another artificial scandal drummed up by content creators who need something to generate clicks. If you need more RAM, just buy it, you can get a 16GB M3 MacBook Pro cheaper now than you could in 2021 or 2022. Nothing scandalous about that, just more savings and an even cheaper option with 8GB RAM. These content creators likely wouldn’t have said a word if Apple had just stuck with the same more expensive M3 Pro chip configuration that works better for their niche YouTube video editing workflow, and they’d probably be talking about what a great value it is like they did the last two years…
So, someone went through this effort.
That’s a ten-fold increase about every five years, for about twenty-five years. Then, not so much.
By the same increase, we’d be at about 512 GiB RAM as a base config now, which is obviously not how the industry has played out. But sticking to the same amount for twelve years doesn’t feel right either.
That’s a ten-fold increase about every five years, for about twenty-five years. Then, not so much.
By the same increase, we’d be at about 512 GiB RAM as a base config now, which is obviously not how the industry has played out. But sticking to the same amount for twelve years doesn’t feel right either.
A graph is worth a thousand words or more. One must wonder how much more expansive the Apple operating system could be if there weren't this 8 GB bottleneck. Even if we don't need all this it goes to show how cheap RAM and SSD's have become to the point they're barely an obstacle anymore. Whether Apple is setting the trends or simply following the market, RAM is tremendously overpriced for what they spend on manufacturing. With the advent of built in and non upgradable components Apple has effectively cornered their slice of the market and absolutely won't let the base RAM increase any further. When they can command $200 for just 8 GB more on the base machines, why give that up?
I like what one person dubbed that... "The Cook Plateau."
It really isn’t. As @chucker23n1 pointed out, following the same graph we’d be at around 512GB RAM base specs now, which is just laughable and way too much for a base spec. Heck, it’s higher than the top end of RAM offered in most modern computers. A 512GB base spec is just way over the top, and this demonstrates the problem with trying to argue “it used to increase by this much every year, and now it doesn’t”. Needs level out. 8GB satisfies most base-spec customers needs just fine. And again, appealing to the amount of time an option’s been available for, has no relevance on whether it’s a good option or not. By that logic, we should ditch USB-C ports and cables because they’ve been around for a decade.
And the graph says nothing about the price of these chips, it’s showing the incremental increase on the RAM base-spec configuration over the years. So no, the graph does not show what you’re claiming it does, it only shows the rate at which it’s increased. Most base spec customers seem to be very happy with 8GB, so likely the reason it’s flatlined is because there’s been no need to increase it. Even if we assume your premise that Apple’s just greedy, their goal would be to make more money by selling more devices. If “greedy Apple” saw most of their base spec customers were dissatisfied with 8GB RAM, then they would up it to ensure they continue to make more money by selling more devices. So your argument doesn’t really make much sense, even if we assume your premise. I find it much more logical and believable that Apple hasn’t increased it from 8GB because their base spec customers are very happy with 8GB, and still find it to be more than enough for them. So there’s been no need to bump it up.
And again, you ignore all of the benefits of non-upgradable components. We don’t know what manufacturing costs are involved with assembly or any of that information. Very very few people want to crack open their computer to try to swap out parts. So instead of catering to a customer base of people who want to crack open their devices and upgrade them, which is practically non-existent, they have made significant improvements to performance, power efficiency, and sliming down their computers to make them lighter and more compact, things their customers seem to care a lot more about.