Sidebar Sidebar
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?

Essentially they are squeezing the market.

I have 64gb and I hit the limit of that most days with istat giving me memory warnings. Im a graphic designer and photographer and having indesign, illustrator, photoshop, Lightroom, outlook, teams and a web browser is a standard day for me.

Anyone who is a creative doesn't shut down each programme when they are done. Im in and out of all of them on a standard work day when building a campaign. It takes time to get back to where you were shutting down and being mindful of ram. In fact I rarely shut the machine down as it means I can just crack on the next day.

At the end of the day the computer is a tool and the more it gets in the way of the creative process the less of of tool is is.

It's 5:30pm and im finishing my work day. Under activity monitor Photoshop is using 29gbs on its own. memory used currently is 59gbs with 6gbs in swap with the rest.

You dont need to be running crazy projects to use ram. Ram is ram and the more you have the more a system will use. All these vids talking about 16gb being enough is also not realistic imo, im not what you would call a heavy user I just multitask.

I bet there are thousands of creatives in the same boat.

For me to upgrade to 96gb, which is obviously the next step for me to continue my workflow effectively, the bottom tier 14" MacBook Pro max which is £3200 its £800 to go from 36 to 96gb. Absolutely bonkers.

I dont need the Max chip the pro would do but they build the tiers to fleece the higher end too.

Makes me not want to buy one, but they get you with the eco system and the fact apple silicon is so good.

The ram and SSD costs are daylight robbery but apple won't see the 40% reduction in Mac purchases as an issue with what they have done it will be the market. The fact we are even chatting about a 2012 MacBook Pro having 8gbs and its the same in 2023 essentially tells the story.

It doesn't matter how efficient ram is, if you use apps you fill it. Apple doesn't make that much pro software anymore and with all creative software being cross platform the likelihood of it those programmes being as efficient as apple software is unrealistic.

Its a toppling totumpole too as if you skimp on ram and dont buy a big enough SSD to support your files and fill it it also cripples the system because of swap memory.

The ram is also shared with the GPU which further cripples the system. Ye apple have innovated in one way but they have absolutely innovated to fleece the user into spending more money. Ram increases have always been the cheapest most economical way to improve your experience.

Apple has built their chips with this in mind and have made their lineup around this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: olekzap, Chuckeee, uczcret and 1 other person
The M3 Pro is already getting beat up as less powerful than some of the mid level M2s. Then Apple does the old “upgrade to the M3 Max to get over xx in memory” is just a money grab. To get 32 GB ram you are forced to go with a M3 Pro as the M3 only offers up to 24GB. So an M3 24GB/1TB costs $2000 (with discount), and M3 Pro 36GB/1TB costs $2500 (discounted). So you are forced to pay $500 for extra whatever just to get to/just over 32GB ram. It isn’t a scam but it is a horrible way to treat your customers. I would have purchased a MBP so I could tether my Nikon and take it to work, but with this price structure, I’m just hanging onto my 2018 mini.
 
  • Like
Reactions: olekzap, Tim Apple’s Glasses, Oculus Mentis and 1 other person
Motorola68000 said:
I can see a near future class action against Apple over its 8Gb base. Its recents ads and media have all been focused about Mac gaming. Now at present 8Gb might suffice on many tasks, albeit with potential significant degradation of its SSD through swapping. Some software already stipulates a minimum 16Gb with Adobe being one of them I believe.

So you take the scenario of new Mac user seeing that Apple is getting into games in the same breath as having 8Gb base RAM, but then just 12 months or 18 months down the line their devices with 8Gb just can't cut it on games, games that Apple was crowing about and may have influenced a new user, where significant swapping will degrade performance to make games playing impossible as well as degrade the SSD used for swapping, its a recipe for a class action. They can hardly add new unified RAM! Result device unusable for games.

Likewise when some marketing person suggests strongly that 8Gb is the equivalent of 16Gb but without mentioning the swapping that has a clear effect on performance and longevity of the SSD, its very very misleading. 8Gb is 8Gb. If the RAM then requires swapping then it should be mentioned not strongly inferring 8Gb is equivalent to 16Gb elsewhere, without mentioning the ramifications.

"Games will look more detailed than ever thanks to hardware-accelerated mesh shading. This brings greater capability and efficiency to geometry processing, enabling games to render more visually complex scenes."
Click to expand...
I agree - I game (on Windows) and we are already in the process in changing from standard requested 16GB to 32GB (to play fluent) only for RAM due to games are demanding much more resources. People forget on Macs everything is shared whereas in my Windows box I have my RAM and VRAM of my card. Should there are higher demands for it I can simply upgrade it either RAM of video card- in Macs you cannot and therefore like you wrote you forced to stick with the bought hardware or replace it with something more powerfull expinsive model. For me and my gaming circle we do not consider Apple as a gaming platform as long we are not able to replace at least the graphic card. I got my MBP M1 with 16GB and it is in some of my work cases simply not enough Apples offerings for more RAM are quite unflexible.
 
Apple_Robert said:
I have never felt cheated by Apple because I am an informed customer.
Click to expand...
It's not really about feeling cheated, but the blatant transparency of Apple's ladder pricing for RAM and storage upgrades. Take the 14-inch M3 MacBook Pro, starting at $1,599 with 8GB of RAM. Opting for 16GB or 24GB costs an extra $200 or $400. Yet, for just another $200, you can get the M3 Pro model with 18GB and additional features at $1,999. It's this stark contrast in value proposition that makes the 900% markup on RAM and storage pricing so jarringly obvious and, frankly, offensive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuckeee and kk200
Two types of Pro Users. Those who actually are Pro users and those who like to be seen as a Pro user. The want to be seen Pro users, 8gb of memory just fine. Any knowledgable Pro users know 8gb is not enough and buy for their needs. All comes down to one’s needs, budget with the seen variable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hans1972 and Chuckeee
No need to believe all the marketing from Apple and other websites the short answer is 8GB is an absolute joke, and this is now damage limitation for Apple who have clearly focused on generating huge profits over delivering a usable base level Mac. The long answer is "it depends" but come on 8GB of ram? really Apple?
 
Premium product.
Premium price
Premium RAM....?
Leader in the industry...
Trendsetter...
Blah blah...


They should be ashamed to hold at 8 for the last decade. They had the chance to "update" when they switched to AS, but they didn't. And they also did not lower prices to upgrade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iLuddite and Stenik
unregbaron said:
It would make some people angry but I wouldn't mind if all MBPs were built with a minimum 16GB but 8GB were locked in the base model, so you could pay $ to unlock the remaining 8GB if you felt you needed it after a period of time.
Click to expand...
That is one of the most hideous things I’ve ever seen an adult (presumably) write on a consumer focused tech site..
 
The question is how much would cost apple to provide 16 gigs instead of 8. Surely apple doesn’t have to pay the 200$ they charge for 8 additional gigabytes.

Maybe not everyone needs 16 gigs but surely most will benefit from it, is making the base model, say, 20-50$ more expensive out of the question?
 
RAM is cheap. It's annoying that Apple still rips us off for an upgrade. Since it's not user upgradable, they just need to make the base be 16 across the board. 16 is good enough for most for the "life" of the device. With that being said, I have 64 in mine, but I run a lot of virtual machines. For my employees though, I only buy a minimum of 16.
 
  • Like
Reactions: olekzap and iLuddite
Motorola68000 said:
I can see a near future class action against Apple over its 8Gb base. Its recents ads and media have all been focused about Mac gaming. Now at present 8Gb might suffice on many tasks, albeit with potential significant degradation of its SSD through swapping. Some software already stipulates a minimum 16Gb with Adobe being one of them I believe.

So you take the scenario of new Mac user seeing that Apple is getting into games in the same breath as having 8Gb base RAM, but then just 12 months or 18 months down the line their devices with 8Gb just can't cut it on games, games that Apple was crowing about and may have influenced a new user, where significant swapping will degrade performance to make games playing impossible as well as degrade the SSD used for swapping, its a recipe for a class action. They can hardly add new unified RAM! Result device unusable for games.

Likewise when some marketing person suggests strongly that 8Gb is the equivalent of 16Gb but without mentioning the swapping that has a clear effect on performance and longevity of the SSD, its very very misleading. 8Gb is 8Gb. If the RAM then requires swapping then it should be mentioned not strongly inferring 8Gb is equivalent to 16Gb elsewhere, without mentioning the ramifications.

"Games will look more detailed than ever thanks to hardware-accelerated mesh shading. This brings greater capability and efficiency to geometry processing, enabling games to render more visually complex scenes."
Click to expand...
There is another important factor. For Intel-based Mac, when Apple refuses to update its macOs, you can switch to Windows and still get new updates and softwares. My 12years old iMac27 2K now runs windows 10 and kids are playing happy with that.

With Apple-Silicon, after Apple stopped macOS supports, what you can do with it?
Chromebook just gave everybody a lesson on such dedicated OS with terminated stop.
Sure Apple cares their HW much longer than google. But with 8GB RAM, this care has its physical limit.
 
Manzanito said:
The question is how much would cost apple to provide 16 gigs instead of 8. Surely apple doesn’t have to pay the 200$ they charge for 8 additional gigabytes.

Maybe not everyone needs 16 gigs but surely most will benefit from it, is making the base model, say, 20-50$ more expensive out of the question?
Click to expand...
This is why it’s important to own lots of APPL so you can afford the 900% markup on RAM and storage. I call it the Circle of Mac.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Chuckeee
Lift Bar said:
Calling it a 'disgrace' might be strong, but it's more about expectations vs reality. 'Pro' implies a certain level of professional capability, where 16GB RAM is almost a baseline nowadays. It's less about status, more about practicality. With 8GB, professionals will struggle with heavy tasks. It's not just about having more RAM, but about the device meeting the needs of its target audience effectively.
Click to expand...

"Pro" is a mere label Apple chose to use to differentiate laptop features and price.

Within that segment there's a wide range of memory/storage options customers can choose, depending on need and budget.

People whose needs are modest/small should not have to pay more for memory they'll never use.

Choice is good. Hat-tip to Apple for offering its customers choice, despite those who get worked-up by labels. Simply choose what you need. Easy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuckeee
No. This is Tim Apple plus Marketing gimping a “Pro” machine to keep the starting price below $2,000. That way they can say “MacBook Pro starts at $1599”.

But if you want the M3 Pro and 18 GB RAM, it’s $2000.
 
doctrsnoop said:
Although I do find 8GB to be sufficient for everyday tasks and even some more advanced ones, and that the hand-wringing is excessive, it is getting ridiculous, especially given cost of the upgrade.
Click to expand...
This is allegedly a pro machine. Pro users should NOT have to worry about shortage of RAM on a $1600 laptop in 2023. Hand wringing is quite appropriate when you’re paying this much in a time when money is not as common freely flowing as it once was.
 
Kal Madda said:
Or, maybe people can look at the choices and decided which configuration will work best for them. People aren’t all clueless. If they think there workflow will benefit from 16GB of RAM, they can get that configuration, and it’s still cheaper, btw, than the base spec 14” MacBook Pro from the last two years, while still including all the nice hardware.
Click to expand...
Since when Apple asks user to define their user experience?
 
  • Angry
Reactions: SuperCachetes
GraXXoR said:
This is allegedly a pro machine. Pro users should NOT have to worry about shortage of RAM on a $1600 laptop in 2023. Hand wringing is quite appropriate when you’re paying this much in a time when money is not as common freely flowing as it once was.
Click to expand...
It's Apple! $1600 is too cheap to be worry free with Apple-product. Sorry for the truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back