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.
The ONLY problem with Macs are price SSD/RAM
- Thread starter SebCohen
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For me it’s simple, anything that makes me money and helps my business, I get it, with maxed out RAM as needed. I paid 4 K for M1 MBP with 64 GB RAM, maxed out CPU/GPU and 1 TB storage. My work station with that kind of GPU memory will cost me 10-20 K easily. For generic use, I don’t see the need for more than base model.
Like you said there is no end for wanting to upgrade to higher capacity.
That’s true for all CPU/GPU. Processors should have enough bandwidth and bus lanes to support RAM. Try building a work station with 256 GB or even 128 GB with a basic CPU.
And yet. The M4 Pro is available in the Mac Mini with 64GB. So its unavailability in the MBP with 64GB doesn't sound to me like a technical limitation.
By your logic the 4090 in my work station has 24 GB RAM but it maxes out at 16 GB on Linux/windows laptop. Same with Intel chips, they support higher memory on desktops, but lesser on laptops for same chipsets.
It's actually not.
I effectively did just what you described. My 2019 i9 iMac has 128 GB RAM with just 8 CPU cores. And I need that 128 GB RAM purely for single-core operations (calculations in Mathematica).
Needing lots of RAM for single-core operations is not uncommon in scientific work.
Hell, even a 4-core 14000-series i3 can support 192 GB RAM:
Intel® Core™ i3 processor 14100 (12M Cache, up to 4.70 GHz) - Product Specifications | Intel
Intel® Core™ i3 processor 14100 (12M Cache, up to 4.70 GHz) quick reference with specifications, features, and technologies.
www.intel.com
So if you're someone who needs lots of RAM but not lots of cores, if you want to work in MacOS you need to significantly overbuy on the CPU.
Fortunately, things are improving. With the M1, you had to buy an Ultra if you needed 128 GB RAM. Now you can get that with the Max.
Last edited:
Most Windows Workstation vendors are rip-offs for what they offer because most of them don't offer any kind of improved custom components such as custom motherboard or RAM sticks. You can make one yourself for less money but with better OEM products inside.
I never mentioned cores. A 8 core AMD processor can support 128 GB. But for me it’s useless with out good memory bandwidth. That’s advantage of building, you can use it for specific purpose but if it is not good for other users, there will be pitchforks.It's actually not.
I effectively did just what you described. My 2019 i9 iMac has 128 GB RAM with just 8 CPU cores. And I need that 128 GB RAM purely for single-core operations (calculations in Mathematica).
Hell, even a 4-core 14000-series i3 can support 192 GB RAM:
Intel® Core™ i3 processor 14100 (12M Cache, up to 4.70 GHz) - Product Specifications | Intel
Intel® Core™ i3 processor 14100 (12M Cache, up to 4.70 GHz) quick reference with specifications, features, and technologies.
Try finding a laptop with more memory on i3, most of them don’t support 64 GB, and max out at 32 GB. May be the latest models are better.
True, you didn't specify core count, but still I think you're dodging what you said:
Since the i3 certainly qualifies as a basic CPU, and takes 192 GB RAM, your position that you can't build a 128 GB workstation with a "basic CPU" is incorrect. Let's settle that one statement before we move onto other issues.
Last edited:
Sure but it will totally be a dud for me. Outside an edge case for single core mathametica. I don’t see many uses for building one. Splurging thousands of dollars.
Ultra is likely to support more RAM than Max for a long time. M2 Ultra is only option if you want 192 GB. M2 Max supported 96 GB. M4 max is at 128 GB, and M4 ultra will probably be at 256 GB.It's actually not.
I effectively did just what you described. My 2019 i9 iMac has 128 GB RAM with just 8 CPU cores. And I need that 128 GB RAM purely for single-core operations (calculations in Mathematica).
Needing lots of RAM for single-core operations is not uncommon in scientific work.
Hell, even a 4-core 14000-series i3 can support 192 GB RAM:
Intel® Core™ i3 processor 14100 (12M Cache, up to 4.70 GHz) - Product Specifications | Intel
Intel® Core™ i3 processor 14100 (12M Cache, up to 4.70 GHz) quick reference with specifications, features, and technologies.
So if you're someone who needs lots of RAM but not lots of cores, if you want to work in MacOS you need to significantly overbuy on the CPU.
Fortunately, things are improving. With the M1, you had to buy an Ultra if you needed 128 GB RAM. Now you can get that with the Max.
Right, but you weren't making the statement for you, you were making it generally ("That’s true for all CPU/GPU").
And it's not just a Mathematica edge case. There are many people who need a lot of RAM but don't need a lot of cores. As I mentioned, a lot of scientific calculations require high RAM and just a single core. And I'm sure there are many such use cases outside of the sciences.
Yes, but not sure why thought you needed to tell me that, because this just falls into the category of "water is wet". Of course the Ultra is likely to continue to support more RAM than the Max.
As you know, the two gens of Ultra thus far have both been 2x Max, so in both cases the max RAM was likewise 2x Max. If they continue this, that should continue as well. If not, the Ultra will still have more, but the multiplier may be different.
But if you're buying a Mac, you're buing a prebuilt machine. So an apples-to-Apple comparison would be to a prebuild.
Having said that, show us what you've got! Send us a screeenshot of your build, showing what price you come up with for what's shown here. Be sure to at least meet the CPU, GPU's, RAM, and SSD, since those make up most of the cost. To meet what they offer, you'll also need at least a 1600W PS, a US-made case, and multiple drive bays and expansion slots. Genuinely curious to see how your build compares.
Also make sure you use legitmate vendors (e.g.: NewEgg yes, AliExpress or EBay no).
Last edited:
Apple's upgrade pricing for SSD storage and memory (DRAM) are high, but the situation probably isn't as bad or "insane" as many think.
On the Mac mini you can just add an external SSD so I don't think there is really much need for significant user upgrades there.
Thus, the SSD situation seems kind of a non issue (i.e. if you object to the cost just don't get Apple's upgrade). Then, for aditional data storage use an external drive. For a MacBook you might even consider using something like a USB thumb drive.
The situation with memory is more complicated, but I think many people are overlooking the fact that Apple silicon doesn't use standard DRAM. One should NOT simply assume that Apple is using non-user-upgradable memory as a way to jack up their pricing.
The type of low-power-consumption memory (LPDDR5) used with Apple silicon typically can't be installed in DIMMs/slots. The same is true for the new Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite PCs. That said, there is a new LPDDR5 format that can be installed in removable "slots" but that may be too recent of a development for use in Apple's current generation of Macs. Maybe next year in the Mac Studio or Mac Pro?
Here is a link to more information on this development:
https://www.crucial.com/articles/about-memory/what-is-lpcamm
But, it looks like this new type of user-replacable memory is pretty expensive right now. A 32GB module is currently $175 when direct from Crucial/Micron, while 64GB is $330. Meanwhile two sticks of 16GB DDR4 SODIMM memory (32GB total) is just $66. So, we're talking a 3X difference in cost and that probably covers much of the pricing differences from Apple (not fully, as obviously they are still making a VERY significant profit from these upgrades).
Finally, note that Dell charges $300 to go from 16GB to 32GB of memory on their XPS 13 laptop, but that also includes an increase from a 512GB to 1TB SSD. But, I'm certain that Apple's internal SSD/storage is MUCH faster than Dell's NVMe drive. Thus, to match specs just use external storage on a Mac. Perhaps not an ideal situation, but a kind of workaround to the prices.
On the Mac mini you can just add an external SSD so I don't think there is really much need for significant user upgrades there.
Thus, the SSD situation seems kind of a non issue (i.e. if you object to the cost just don't get Apple's upgrade). Then, for aditional data storage use an external drive. For a MacBook you might even consider using something like a USB thumb drive.
The situation with memory is more complicated, but I think many people are overlooking the fact that Apple silicon doesn't use standard DRAM. One should NOT simply assume that Apple is using non-user-upgradable memory as a way to jack up their pricing.
The type of low-power-consumption memory (LPDDR5) used with Apple silicon typically can't be installed in DIMMs/slots. The same is true for the new Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite PCs. That said, there is a new LPDDR5 format that can be installed in removable "slots" but that may be too recent of a development for use in Apple's current generation of Macs. Maybe next year in the Mac Studio or Mac Pro?
Here is a link to more information on this development:
https://www.crucial.com/articles/about-memory/what-is-lpcamm
But, it looks like this new type of user-replacable memory is pretty expensive right now. A 32GB module is currently $175 when direct from Crucial/Micron, while 64GB is $330. Meanwhile two sticks of 16GB DDR4 SODIMM memory (32GB total) is just $66. So, we're talking a 3X difference in cost and that probably covers much of the pricing differences from Apple (not fully, as obviously they are still making a VERY significant profit from these upgrades).
Finally, note that Dell charges $300 to go from 16GB to 32GB of memory on their XPS 13 laptop, but that also includes an increase from a 512GB to 1TB SSD. But, I'm certain that Apple's internal SSD/storage is MUCH faster than Dell's NVMe drive. Thus, to match specs just use external storage on a Mac. Perhaps not an ideal situation, but a kind of workaround to the prices.
It's only a problem if you treat a Mac as parts instead of a whole indivisible computer.
Just configure the Mac the way you need or want it without looking at the prices. If the prices stick in your brain, just let someone else configure it for you. If the price is too high for the value it provides, don't buy it.
By doing it this way, you don't know why it's too expensive, it just is.
Just configure the Mac the way you need or want it without looking at the prices. If the prices stick in your brain, just let someone else configure it for you. If the price is too high for the value it provides, don't buy it.
By doing it this way, you don't know why it's too expensive, it just is.
Well, yes, that was my entire point, they are NOT using the inexpensive memory that many PCs currently use. As I wrote in my post Apple is using LPDDR5 which is a LOT more expensive that DDR4 (because of the former's better performance).
Last edited:
If I want the M4 Pro Mac mini with 48GB of RAM it is almost 500€ extra, so instead of settling with just 24GB of RAM, which might be insufficient in the long run, I’m choosing the regular M4 Mac mini with 32GB of RAM which is actually cheaper and I can include 1TB of storage for the same price as the base M4 Pro.
So, yeah, a big deciding factor is the price of the upgrades, definitely. I would have chosen an M4 Pro mini if it started at 1TB of storage and had the upgrade option of 32 or 36GB of RAM for the usual extra 230€.
So, yeah, a big deciding factor is the price of the upgrades, definitely. I would have chosen an M4 Pro mini if it started at 1TB of storage and had the upgrade option of 32 or 36GB of RAM for the usual extra 230€.
So you would rather forego much better performance in the short term for the fear of 24GB of unified memory being a restriction in the long run?
What exactly do you envision you can do with 32GB of unified memory but not with 24GB?
It's a matter of "to each according to their needs". Many know they won't use the extra CPU or GPU cores found in the Pro, in which case the Pro really isn't giving them any better performance. But they do benefit from having 1 TB storage instead of 0.5 TB. Plus 32 GB RAM is a nice extra cushion above 24 GB. Even for routine (but heavy) office work, I found I was swapping quite a bit when I temporarily tried 32 GB in my iMac. That would be increased with 24 GB.
Anyone who defends Apple's pricing of memory and storage upgrades is delusional. The manufacturing difference is literally in pennies or single digit dollars. Yet they charge whopping $600 for 2TB SSD upgrade... that's quadruple the price of e.g. Samsung 990 PRO... which is a standalone product. Apple just slaps NANDs on the board... the controller is on the SOC.
Same goes for memory.
Please don't even start on "enterprise" quality of chips or any other crap.
Same goes for memory.
Please don't even start on "enterprise" quality of chips or any other crap.
Workstations are tricky. You need to know what you are doing to avoid overpaying.
On Puget Systems' website, you can configure a reasonably high-end workstation (32-core Threadripper Pro, 768 GB RAM, 2x8 TB SSD) for $16k + whatever you are willing to pay for GPUs. Going beyond that gets expensive. 64-core and 96-core options cost almost $4k and almost $7k more, because you are literally buying 2x or 3x more chiplets. And upgrading the RAM to 1 TB costs ~$7k, because 128 GB DDR5 modules are a fancy new thing and more than twice as expensive as 96 GB modules. SSDs are cheap, ~$1k for 8 TB, but you can't add more than four.
So it's $16k for a cost-effective workstation or $32k for a maxed out one. And then a few hundred dollars if you don't need a powerful GPU or $24k if you want triple RTX 6000.
Right, but what you're referring to is entirely different from the context my exchange with that poster. I was replying to a poster who was noting that a decked-out Intel Mac Pro was $50k, and I replied that if you built a PC workstation with the same specs you'd be in the same ballpark.
And that's just today. I recall trying to build one back in 2019 with the same specs on Dell's website, and it came out to far more than that.
What you're talking about here are entirely different types of builds than what our interchange was about. If you want to get into that, then knock yourself out, but you'll need to work up comparable builds for the Intel Mac Pro.
Last edited:
Seriously looking at the M4 minis. 2 USB-C ports, 3 Thunderbolt, Ethernet, HDMI and an audio jack is sufficient for basic needs. And 16GB RAM should withstand several years of software bloat. Those 8 GB configurations were probably going to come up short on the first or second OS upgrade. May also have to update my monitor as HDMI to Display port cables seem to be one way in the wrong direction and I want to keep all three of the TB ports open for other uses.