M-series Macs versus the rest: Why?

[Gudi]

What knowledge? In the absence of other evidence, the sensible assumption is that the memory fairy doesn't wave their wand and turn ...

There's no sensible way to make up bull. If you don't know, say you don't know! And begin to investigate. MaxTech has several RAM comparison videos up and they come to opposite conclusions for M1 and M3.

Apple M1 Macs 8GB vs 16GB RAM - Multitasking STRESS Test

M3 MacBook Pro 8GB vs 16GB RAM - How BAD is base model?

The M1 performs almost identical regardless of memory. And even if you stress the systems hard with crazy multitasking, the performance of Swap and RAM memory is basically the same. Whereas the M3 is not just much slower on 8 GB vs 16 GB (despite being a faster chip than the M1 was), it crashes on Blender and FinalCut. As so often in this case more memory is just a band-aid for poor implementation (of a new graphics architecture). This issue might or might not be fixable with a simple software update.

The definition of "knowledge" is not "a different assumption that better suits my world view".

Knowledge is the opposite of an assumption. All those machines are available and you can test them under whichever use case you see fit. But you don't, because you already know what you want to believe.

No - your fallacy is that you're reversing the burden of proof. You want to make an extraordinary claim, you need to provide extraordinary evidence.

You, said something, you've got to proof it. Only because you think your assumption sounds plausible means nothing to me. All myths sound as if they could be true.

 

[SnowCrocodile]

Laptops are tools. Comparing them without looking at use cases is pointless. I agree with whoever first said that specs mean nothing if you’re not comparing within the same ecosystem. It’s like arguing whether Porsche 911 is “better” than F-150. Better for what? Street racing, hauling a boat, long road trips with family?

For an average home user who is not into gaming, a base MBA is likely among the best options… but even in this case, there are nuances. For anyone doing any real work on their laptop, the nature of that work defines the tools they need. If you need Windows tools, you need a Windows laptop. It’s really this simple.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

It’s 2023, well almost the end of it and we have a lot of people - consumers, prosumers and tech analysts comparing Macs against Windows (especially in the laptop/notebook category).

It didn’t make sense then, and it doesn’t now. In my country, a baseline i7 XPS 15 is the same price as the baseline M3 MBP. To me it is a rather clear-cut decision to make.

Now that I’ve got my rants out of the way, why do people compare prices and specs between Macs and Windows laptop?

Doesn't the baseline XPS 15 come with 16 gb of RAM, versus the M3 that only comes with 8?

 

[Al Rukh]

Doesn't the baseline XPS 15 come with 16 gb of RAM, versus the M3 that only comes with 8?

Aha! Thanks for validating my thread with your comment.

 

[theluggage]

There's no sensible way to make up bull. If you don't know, say you don't know!

If you "don't know" you can still make sensible assumptions based on what you do know - and those assumptions beat unfounded claims about 8GB on Mac being somehow equivalent to 16GB on PC.

And begin to investigate. MaxTech has several RAM comparison videos up and they come to opposite conclusions for M1 and M3.

...what do those videos have to do with the Mac vs. PC RAM comparison (apart from a quick reference to Apples '8GB on Mac is analogous to 16GB on PC' claim in the second video)?

But, anyway, if we're changing the subject, let's have a look, because they still tackle an important question:

First video 8GB M1 vs 16GB M1 - typical of such videos when the M1 came out - only proves that if your workflow doesn't push the memory pressure hard into the orange with 8GB of RAM then having 16GB doesn't help. Well, duh! Keeps pointing at memory used and swap used isn't a big deal its the page fault rates that indicate RAM shortage. No control over exactly which sites (and ads) are loaded into those tabs... Even then, there is still a measurable difference so it doesn't show that 8GB is as good as 16, just that 8GB might be a sensible compromise.

Second video - wait, what? Now the baseline performance is Cinebench instead of just Google speed test, and we're doing 3D rendering in Blender...? Gosh, I wonder why these two videos came to opposite conclusions... could it be because they moved the goalposts?

These videos actually make one good point - that a higher performance processor deserves more RAM - technically because where the M1 was probably being throttled by processor speed the M3 was being throttled by memory pressure, but also because people now have higher expectations, and the 14" MBP is now at a higher price point than the old 13" "Thicker MacBook Air with a fan".

Apple's problem is that 8GB has been the starting configuration for a decade while the processors have become progressively more powerful. Even if the "big step forward" with the M1 did improve RAM efficiency that's 3 years ago now, and everything apart from RAM and SSD capacity has moved forward...

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

Aha! Thanks for validating my thread with your comment.

I mean it is important to consider since we have real world tests showing that 8gb is a massive bottleneck, and with how much Apple is overcharging on RAM versus the competition it's a pretty valid comparison.

 

[theluggage]

Thats why I don't get it when some on here criticise the base models. It's a nonsense..

It's not just about the spec of the base models - its about the totally disproportionate cost of upgrading them to what is still a fairly unremarkable 16GB/512GB or 16GB/1TB spec (plus, depending where you live, buying a BTO model may be difficult & you're certainly less likely to find an upgraded model at a discount). Apple's practice seems to be using expensive upgrades to subsidise low headline prices for the entry-level models.

Whenever I've tried to compare Mac and PC prices honestly - i.e. looking at PCs with comparable displays, CPU/GPU, form-factor and 'fit and finish' most Mac models actually come out pretty competitive... right up to the point where you add the RAM and SSD that you need. Then the Mac price shoots ahead, even compared to most PC BTO upgrades, let alone where 3rd party upgrades are available (You can argue that only LPDDR5 PCs are comparable, which never offer upgradeable RAM, but many still use M.2 for storage - it will be interesting to see what happens when the forthcoming, upgradeable LPDDR modules hit the PC market).

If you only need 8GB of RAM and 256GB of SSD then, most likely, you only need the base M1 (which is still insanely capable). Currently, Apple are pitching the M2 and M3 as something better than entry-level and, even if you choose the "better" model from those ranges you still only get 8GB of RAM (and 256GB of SSD in the case of the iMac).

Apple's base RAM/SSD specs and upgrade prices have barely changed in 10 years (back then, 8GB was a decent = but not excessive - amount of RAM and SSDs bigger than 256GB were expensive) while everything else has moved on.

 

[mcled53]

Out of curiosity, where can you buy the XPS 15 for that price?


Most of the comparisons on this forum are about performance. So you can establish that one laptop performs better than the other. However, you may choose the lower performance laptop for other subjective reasons, such as it has better aesthetics.

XPS 15 Laptop: Dell XPS Laptop Computers | Dell USA

Shop the Dell XPS 15 laptop featuring 16:10 4-sided InfinityEdge display & 100% Adobe RGB color, or view all new XPS laptops at Dell.com.

www.dell.com

 

[h.gilbert]

There’s a difference. Those who purchased MacBooks, do know there are better spec-out Windows laptop out there with same or similar price point but do not care for it, as they value the things I’ve listed in that post. I’m referring to those who went and bought a MacBook - I’m not saying most prefer said features in a MacBook. My second paragraph doubles down on that.

So your argument is that Macbooks and Windows laptops shouldn't be compared because most consumers have already decided on mac vs PC and therefore comparisons within the mac range and within in the PC range are more useful.

I would disagree, most people I know who buy laptops have not decided on mac or windows and go into the market looking at both machines. Ultimately it's exactly these mac vs pc reviews that help them decided which route to go.

 

[jdb8167]

If you only need 8GB of RAM and 256GB of SSD then, most likely, you only need the base M1 (which is still insanely capable). Currently, Apple are pitching the M2 and M3 as something better than entry-level and, even if you choose the "better" model from those ranges you still only get 8GB of RAM (and 256GB of SSD in the case of the iMac).

This doesn't make any sense to me. Why does more RAM equate to needing more than the base SoC? There are plenty of things you do with a computer that you want to be faster but don't necessarily need a huge amount of RAM. For example, compressing video using Handbrake. As many in this thread have repeatedly pointed out, memory and cpu performance don't have a lot to do with each other as long as your working set fits in RAM. It's only if you need to swap to SSD that you get a performance hit which won't happen if your working set all fits in RAM.

 

[theluggage]

This doesn't make any sense to me. Why does more RAM equate to needing more than the base SoC?

...because, in general, the more powerful the SoC, the more data it can process, and the more RAM it needs to keep it fed with data.

If you get a SoC that has (say) more cores to support more simultaneous tasks than the base model then each of those tasks is going to need its working set in RAM. There's actually a rule of thumb of ~4GB per core for server applications (crops up in various places, e.g. here) although I don't think that specific figure is applicable (I'm certainly not claiming that an 8 core M1 needs 32GB RAM) it shows the principle.

Sure, there are apps like Handbrake that can light up all the cores without needing that much RAM (although the half-bandwidth 256GB SSD on the base M2s might then become the bottleneck) but generally your workload will consist of a mix of applications - probably multitasking - and when it comes to choosing a better system you are generally going to want to extend RAM, CPU and GPU together.

But somehow it seems like "8GB works for me" on one hand vs. "OMG I must have a M3!" on the other. If you just want to compress a few DVD rips with Handbrake from time to time, an M1 will get the job done.

 

[ksj1]

I agree that 1GB of RAM is 1GB whether on a Mac or a Windows PC. IMO the Mac's memory management is superior to Windows. Here is an example.

 

[toobravetosave]

To be more clear, when I said it’s a no-brainer, I meant the M3 baseline MacBook Pro is what I’ll always get over a baseline XPS 15. They’re the same price here in my country.

Unless you need windows specific software then it’s a no brainer in the other direction

 

[Al Rukh]

Unless you need windows specific software then it’s a no brainer in the other direction

That’s exactly my point. There’s no comparison needed to convince consumers to get one over the other just because one has a slightly higher RAM config.

 

[bobcomer]

That’s exactly my point. There’s no comparison needed to convince consumers to get one over the other just because one has a slightly higher RAM config.

Double isn't "slightly" higher, it's twice the RAM.

 

[toobravetosave]

Normal people doing office tasks don't care about 8 or 16gb of RAM they care about having a familiar device within their price range. As for returning customers mac users generally buy another Mac and windows users generally do the same.

 

[hans1972]

It's not just about the spec of the base models - its about the totally disproportionate cost of upgrading them to what is still a fairly unremarkable 16GB/512GB or 16GB/1TB spec (plus, depending where you live, buying a BTO model may be difficult & you're certainly less likely to find an upgraded model at a discount). Apple's practice seems to be using expensive upgrades to subsidise low headline prices for the entry-level models.

You're really just complain that a MacBook with the amount of RAM and SSD storage you want is too expensive. Which is OK, but it should be complete de-coupled from what the base model is.

 

[pdoherty]

Double isn't "slightly" higher, it's twice the RAM.

And, it's actually a lot more than that, since on either system the OS is taking up quite a lot of it after a boot (and on the Mac you need to subtract even more for the graphics taking some). So, an 8GB system might have 5-6 GB available for use after boot. But a 16GB system, assuming it used the same on boot (and why wouldn't it?), would have 13-14 GB available, more than double as much.

 

[Xiao_Xi]

DxOMark has awarded the 14-inch MacBook Pro with M3 Pro chip as the notebook with the best speaker and display performance. It also praises its excellent camera for video calls.
https://www.dxomark.com/laptops/Apple/MacBook-Pro-14"-(M3-Pro,-2023)#scores

 

[theluggage]

You're really just complain that a MacBook with the amount of RAM and SSD storage you want is too expensive. Which is OK, but it should be complete de-coupled from what the base model is.

Except it can't be decoupled - the Mac isn't priced using some "bill-of-materials + labour + % margin" formula - they're sold at strategic "price points" and the price of the base model is influenced by how many BTO upgrades (at something like 4x cost) they can sell. I suspect it is also about forcing more of the higher-value sales through Apple's own stores & online shop (where they get to keep more of the income).

I think most people would be happy if they just cut the upgrade prices and left the base models as is - but that is not going to happen because it is baked into their pricing structure. This hasn't changed much since at least 2017 when they were selling high-end iMacs with 8GB and still charging $200 to upgrade to 16GB - but at least then you could get 3rd party upgrades (I got an extra 16GB for less than Apple charged for adding 8GB).

Apple will shift when they drop the "8GB is enough" policy and bump the base model to 16GB - which will happen eventually because the smaller chips will start becoming uneconomical as the rest of the PC market moves on.

 

[Ethosik]

Because people turn everything into sportsball. Everything is a competition. Everything is an argument to be had. They don't buy it as a tool (in which case, the one they need, Mac vs. Windows, and which model with which capabilities made by which company, would be simple enough to determine), they buy it as a lifestyle choice, or due to FOMO, or any one of a number of emotional reasons rather than practical.

You're absolutely correct, the comparison you suggest in your opening message is basic and practical and no one else can do it for an individual. Their needs, their requirements, their budget makes the decision. But then, they don't get to post a message, start an argument, gather 200 follow up posts, and feed the beast.

Agreed. These constant wars (console wars too) are so tiresome. I have 8 computers in my lab and workflow. 2 Windows PCs and the rest Macs. I have all gaming consoles. I’m okay with using Windows but prefer macOS. Everything has advantages and disadvantages. Macs are not immune to having items in the Con list of pros and cons. Neither are Windows PCs or a Linux box.

 

[eltoslightfoot]

For me choice is pretty clear.
Laptops: MBP
Workstation: AmD/Nvidia upgradeable Linux/Windows workstations.

I have tried many windows laptops, including the ones with high end GPU. They are spec monsters, but real life Duds if you need to push them at consistent load. They work for gaming, with short spikes at higher load.

Weird, over the years my windows laptops with high-end i7 processors, plenty of RAM, and Nvidia GPUs have worked well with loads over time just fine. And my RTX 4060, i7-13700HX, and 32GB of RAM (which I paid a pittance for and upgraded myself) does fantastic over time. It definitely outperforms my M1 MBP 13" with 16GB of RAM. Granted it uses like 10X the power to do so. LOL.

 

[Ethosik]

If you know that PC laptops are cheaper and have better specs, why does it bother you so much when a reviewer says that? Comparisons helps to understand what value each notebook brings.


Explaining user experience is difficult because it is very subjective and depends on many factors. Therefore, I think it should be Apple's marketing job to explain it and not third party reviewers.


People tend to buy the cheapest laptop that meets their requirements. However, some people have very specific requirements that narrow the pool of possible laptops to a few and that increases the price of possible purchases. It sounds like one of your requirements is to run macOS and you don't mind paying more for it.

Well I think I can see partly what he is coming from. Specs can be better, but to me most of the time the software on the Mac side just beats out the windows side. Especially the OS. I don’t even mind paying $500 more just for the ability to use macOS. Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro, Transmit, and many other Mac apps are so beautifully designed and are great compared to windows equivalent which more than likely are recommended as open source with 2000 era UI.

 

[eltoslightfoot]

This whole thread is so pointless.

Just wait until the ARM wave hits windows laptops next year.

 

[Ethosik]

Here’s the evidence of the price of a XPS 15 base in my country:

The M3 MBP, 8/512GBs is the same price as this.

Yep. People ignore other parts of the specs too. 1080p display resolution at 60Hz is an immediate. NO from me. I don’t care if you shove a 4090 and 64 GB of RAM in there. That display is just gross.