User base "as a whole", not just the small percentage of the personal computer user base who own a Mac. As a whole, the INDUSTRY still focuses on clock speeds.
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.
Will 16GB of Memory Finally Come Standard Alongside the M3 Chip?
- Thread starter Juanchi007
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
User base "as a whole", not just the small percentage of the personal computer user base who own a Mac. As a whole, the INDUSTRY still focuses on clock speeds.
What's got "the industry" to do with anything? Yes, technically Macs and PCs are both personal computers. But you can't put one of Intel's diversely clocked CPUs into your new Mac. Macs don't have a socket anymore, they don't belong to the shrinking modular PC aftermarket.
I actually agree with you on this, clock isn't a concern for most people, even me, and I buy PC's for the company. It really doesn't tell you anything, at least since the core 2 processors. A quick look at a benchmark, just about any benchmark, will tell you a lot more.
But I think Windows and Linux users count as computer users and buyers.
Well clock speed relative to what? You can't compare clock speed on an M Processor to an Intel one. You can't even compare clock speed on an AMD Processor to an Intel one... MHz(Ghz) Is just the (electrical) frequency at which a processor runs. That doesn't tell you anything about that Processor's performance without knowing its architecture in detail which I doubt most people here do no matter which CPUs we are talking about.
Clock speeds are used as a relative comparison between CPUs of the same generation (i.e., 5xxx series AMDs, 12th gen Intel i Series, etc.) You actually can compare clock speeds between AMD and Intel, because the significant differences such as IPC largely occur between different generations of each company's CPUs rather than within CPUs of the same generation. With that being said, whenever significant changes are made between generations (i.e., Intel moving to a combination of performance and efficiency cores), the direct comparison between generations of Intel CPUs is harder to make because of those architectural changes.
Yes you can but the point is 3Ghz on intel will never be = 3Ghz on AMD.
You can say 3Ghz from AMD is about the same as 3.4GHz from intel from a particular generation but that will never apply to all workloads. Usually when you see a comparison like this then it's comparing benchmarks and (probably)then popular and very used software.
You can still buy a Microsoft Surface laptop with 4Gb of RAM with 64Gb eMMC storage (even slower than SSD). This computer was released 14-15 months ago.
I never said it was impossible. But there's a lot less machines that have 4GB RAM than there was 2 years ago (which is closer to when those machines first released!). I also don't see the 64GB SKU on Microsoft's site anymore. For the same price there's loads of 8GB/256SSD machines that make a lot more sense unless you really need a Windows tablet or something. I would doubt MS would refresh them with 4GB but they are the leaders of the PC world at releasing old outdated configs for whatever reason.
So, they're complaining about the price.
They should just be honest about this.
I don't use Chrome but I have tested an M1 Air with 8Gb of RAM and running a Windows 11 virtual machine on it and at the sometime using Outlook, Teams with video and Safari open with about 10 tabs without any problems.
Also Windows 11 is so fast with only 2gb of RAM in the virtual machine.
But some of use Macs with 8Gb of RAM or have several family members with such Macs.
In my extended family about half are using Macs with 8Gb or less and none of them are complaining about performance issues. For their use case 8Gb is more than enough. Also for most them, 128Gb SSD would also be enough.
The thing is apps are already reaching that point even without intentionally making apps any more bloated.
With chrome and only those tabs and activity monitor open, I'm already at View attachment 2153802
8GB RAM today is bare minimum when you use it together with swap. This is Apple's planned usage intention.
You have to look at the memory pressure and also see if your computer is slowed down. Also when you have less memory available, applications and the OS will use less memory.
You can't use a MacBook with 16Gb to measure how a MacBook with 8Gb will behave.
Maybe not in the world, but certainly in rich developed countries.
Here in Norway, the social pressure to get an iPhone and Mac can be pretty tough for teenagers. The exception being a gaming PC.
Memory pressure is green so you're fine.
There is no swap used! And the OS is stilling using 2.45 Gb for caching. You have plenty of RAM.
You do know that the OS is trying to use as much memory as possible? Having free memory is a crime.
You shouldn't, but then your complaint should be that the Macs are too expensive not that the base memory configuration is too small.
Which again boils down to money.
Scenario 1:
M2 MacBook Air with 8 Gb RAM: $800 for the whole Mac
M2 MacBook Air with 16Gb RAM: $1000 for the whole Mac
Scenario 2:
M2 MacBook Air with 8Gb RAM: Doesn't exist
M2 MacBook Air with 16 RAM: $1600
Only if you prefer scenario 2 are you concerned about the base model configuration.
If you like scenario 1, price is the most important thing.
The thing is, people want their MacBook to be cheaper and they should be hones about that.
No you just don't understand what base model means. If you get a bunch of upgrades to the base model it stops being the base model!
Base means "the minimum configuration users are left with no choice to purchase". So an argument for an increase in the base configuration means everybody pays more. Why would anyone want to create a situation where ordinary users are required to pay for more than they need?
No because it works two ways? Apple can reduce profit margins a little to bump up the base model specs but keep the price the same. It's not that hard to grasp. Upping the config doesn't necessarily mean the price has to go up, it all depends on how much Apple makes per unit.
I'm a PC guy making my first foray into Mac land thanks to the strength of Mac silicon. This entire discussion is one reason why I resisted Macs all my life. You can argue the base users only need the base config. Fine. But $400 to go up to 16/512? For $200, i should get an extra 1TB, not another measly 256gb. This pricing is only possible because they lock down their hardware.
It just feels like I'm being taken to the cleaner. Apple squeezing every last dollar out of their customers and somehow training them to think it's fine like some kind of Stockholm syndrome doesn't make me feel good about buying from them.
It just feels like I'm being taken to the cleaner. Apple squeezing every last dollar out of their customers and somehow training them to think it's fine like some kind of Stockholm syndrome doesn't make me feel good about buying from them.
Apple Silicon
For most of your life, you could upgrade memory and storage of a Mac yourself and Apple's prices were high nonetheless.
If you actually need more memory, chances are you do earn the money to afford it. Every company has to create different price points for their products to serve different customer groups. Would you rather have Apple to also cut out other features to make the upgrades look more worthwhile? Because Apple is doing that as well, for example with the entry level iMac. Or you could buy a Microsoft Surface, which is simply an awful laptop at an inflated price. If you feel like you don't get enough for you money, simply don't buy! 🤷
No, these scenarios are both disconnected from reality and also from the point I was making.
I wasn't talking about iPhones. As for Macs, I don't see much pressure here in Switzerland, which is definitely a rich country. Most non tech enthusiasts, the ones I was talking about, buy Windows PCs, simply because they are cheaper. And many don't buy any laptop at all and just live with their smartphone.
Tech enthusiasts are a different story and probably in rich countries Apple has indeed a bigger share than in other countries