2024 MacBook Air still 8GB Unified Memory

[raythompsontn]

The problem is that in 2024 it should be standard. In fact, the window for 16gb being standard started to close years ago.

Dell is still selling servers, with 8GB of RAM. I don't think any window has closed even on the 8GB.

I see lots of systems being sold with 4GB for Windows with a 128GB cheap SSD. People still buy them so there is a market that is being satisfied. You cannot get much done on 4GB, but the buyer can do email, web, financial software, some picture editing, video phone calls. For some that is enough.

Those are doing more, probably know they need more memory and storage and pay for it. Apple is not unique in their prices for additional memory. The Surface line of products from Microsoft upgrades are just as costly.

Truth is no one here knows about the real cost. The chip yield on the larger chips may be much lower, thus costing more than the lower values. There may be some chip logistics that require more real estate thus lowering the chip yield per chip wafer. To compare Apple's memory to some memory stick from Crucial is not comparing the same items.

Look at the prices on Dell's website for the cost of upgrades. Their systems start with 16GB because the systems are running Windows.

Apple is not doing anything the industry is not doing. Comparing desktop memory to laptop memory is not a good comparison.

 

[James Godfrey]

Yep, I'd be quite surprised if the base model M4 MBA gets 12GB of ram "unified memory" as standard...

I think the base model M5 MBA will get 12GB, and it will stay that way for several years (ie up to base model M9 or M10 MBA).

And even more controversial...MBA upgrade paths will be to 18GB ($200/£200/€200 extra) and 24GB ($400/£400/€400 extra).

Apple gives...and apple takes.

Yeah the issue we have is Apple will increase the base price in line with a RAM upgrade so I can see £100 added onto the entry level prices regardless so we will essentially pay for it regardless.

But it is a fact that not everyone needs more RAM so whilst we sit here complaining that 8GB is bad being the base RAM still, when it gets upgraded to 12 and the price increases by £100 there will be just as many people feeling like they are being forced into paying for something they don’t need.

 

[chucker23n1]

But it is a fact that not everyone needs more RAM

But people increasingly will.

You can assume people keep a laptop for ~3-5 years. 8 GiB is still fine today, but if you buy an M3 Air today, that means you'll have that amount in 2027 or even 2029. IOW, macOS 18, 19, or 20. At that point, 8 will be less fun to work with than with macOS 14.

 

[raythompsontn]

But it is a fact that not everyone needs more RAM so whilst we sit here complaining that 8GB is bad being the base RAM still, when it gets upgraded to 12 and the price increases by £100 there will be just as many people feeling like they are being forced into paying for something they don’t need.

That will give people something else to complain about. Why they don't get 24GB as base level memory. Why does Apple charge so much for additional memory.

People are complaining about the cost of memory upgrades for a thin, light laptop. Look at the offerings from Dell and Microsoft. The cost of the memory upgrades is on par with Apple. In fact, Dell charges more than Apple for 64GB by 20%.

Laptop memory is not the same as desktop memory. Thin and light laptops do not use common memory sticks for a reason. Memory sticks are bulky as are the sockets. Desktop memory uses relatively cheap memory on a stick, typically eight, sometimes four, memory modules per stick. Yields on those memory modules is fairly high for each chip wafer.

Truth is that no one here knows what the yields are for each wafer for laptop memory. No one here knows the real cost to the manufacturer for the cost of additional memory. Since all laptop vendors charge about the same I would guess the cost is not trivial like it is for desktop memory.

If a person wants to use desktop memory cards in a laptop, buy one of those machines. They heavy and thick relative to the MacBook machines. If a person does not like Apple prices, or Dell prices, or Microsoft prices, buy something else. I don't like the cost of my F-150, but I bought one, and I don't make complaining about the price a crusade.

 

[Howard2k]

Truth is that no one here knows what the yields are for each wafer for laptop memory. No one here knows the real cost to the manufacturer for the cost of additional memory. Since all laptop vendors charge about the same I would guess the cost is not trivial like it is for desktop memory.

It doesn't actually matter how much the memory costs Apple. Apple is not setting their memory pricing based on the cost.

 

[aj_niner]

Mac model​	MSRP​	Chip​	RAM (GB)​	SSD (TB)​	CPU (Core)​	GPU (Core)​
iMac 24"​	$1,299​	M3​	16​	0.5​	8​	8​
iMac 24"​	$1,499​	M3​	16​	0.5​	8​	10​
iMac 24"​	$1,699​	M3​	16​	1​	8​	10​
​	​	​	​	​	​	​
MBA 13"​	$1,099​	M3​	16​	0.5​	8​	8​
MBA 13"​	$1,299​	M3​	16​	1​	8​	10​
MBA 13"​	$1,499​	M3​	32​	1​	8​	10​
​	​	​	​	​	​	​
MBA 15"​	$1,299​	M3​	16​	0.5​	8​	10​
MBA 15"​	$1,499​	M3​	16​	1​	8​	10​
MBA 15"​	$1,699​	M3​	32​	1​	8​	10​
​	​	​	​	​	​	​
MBP 14"​	$1,599​	M3​	16​	1​	8​	10​
MBP 14"​	$1,799​	M3​	16​	2​	8​	10​
MBP 14"​	$1,999​	M3 Pro​	36​	1​	11​	14​
MBP 14"​	$2,399​	M3 Pro​	36​	2​	12​	18​
MBP 14"​	$3,199​	M3 Max​	72​	2​	14​	30​
​	​	​	​	​	​	​
MBP 16"​	$2,499​	M3 Pro​	36​	1​	12​	18​
MBP 16"​	$2,899​	M3 Pro​	72​	1​	12​	18​
MBP 16"​	$3,499​	M3 Max​	72​	2​	14​	30​
MBP 16"​	$3,999​	M3 Max​	96​	2​	16​	40​

Above is how 2x RAM & 2x SSD would play out at the same MSRP, CPU core count & GPU core count.

 

[chucker23n1]

That will give people something else to complain about. Why they don't get 24GB as base level memory.

My contention continues to be that leaving the base at 8 for twelve years isn't great. At no point would I suggest that the Air should start at 24. That's overkill, and will be for a while.

Why does Apple charge so much for additional memory.

That's a separate discussion.

Truth is that no one here knows what the yields are for each wafer for laptop memory. No one here knows the real cost to the manufacturer for the cost of additional memory. Since all laptop vendors charge about the same I would guess the cost is not trivial like it is for desktop memory.

We know the ceiling of what Apple pays the manufacturer (in this case, likely SG Hynix). For example, here's a 12 GiB (96 Gb) stick for $58.60, with the RAM type (though not the manufacturer) Apple uses.

Here's 8 GiB (64 Gb) instead, for $39.41.

So, even assuming Apple buys in bulk volumes of only 2,500 (which they definitely do not; they've been known to buy up entire production runs), upgrading the base Air from 8 to 12 would cost them no more than twenty bucks.

Mac model​	MSRP​	Chip​	RAM (GB)​	SSD (TB)​	CPU (Core)​	GPU (Core)​
iMac 24"​	$1,299​	M3​	16​	0.5​	8​	8​
iMac 24"​	$1,499​	M3​	16​	0.5​	8​	10​
iMac 24"​	$1,699​	M3​	16​	1​	8​	10​
​	​	​	​	​	​	​
MBA 13"​	$1,099​	M3​	16​	0.5​	8​	8​
MBA 13"​	$1,299​	M3​	16​	1​	8​	10​
MBA 13"​	$1,499​	M3​	32​	1​	8​	10​
​	​	​	​	​	​	​
MBA 15"​	$1,299​	M3​	16​	0.5​	8​	10​
MBA 15"​	$1,499​	M3​	16​	1​	8​	10​
MBA 15"​	$1,699​	M3​	32​	1​	8​	10​
​	​	​	​	​	​	​
MBP 14"​	$1,599​	M3​	16​	1​	8​	10​
MBP 14"​	$1,799​	M3​	16​	2​	8​	10​
MBP 14"​	$1,999​	M3 Pro​	36​	1​	11​	14​
MBP 14"​	$2,399​	M3 Pro​	36​	2​	12​	18​
MBP 14"​	$3,199​	M3 Max​	72​	2​	14​	30​
​	​	​	​	​	​	​
MBP 16"​	$2,499​	M3 Pro​	36​	1​	12​	18​
MBP 16"​	$2,899​	M3 Pro​	72​	1​	12​	18​
MBP 16"​	$3,499​	M3 Max​	72​	2​	14​	30​
MBP 16"​	$3,999​	M3 Max​	96​	2​	16​	40​

Above is how 2x RAM & 2x SSD would play out at the same MSRP, CPU core count & GPU core count.

Note that this isn't practical. Such memory densities don't exist; Apple can't offer a 72 GiB option on the M3 Pro without significantly changing its design.

 

[snipr125]

Interestingly on Amazon UK, the base 15" MBA M3 8/256 has already had a £50 price cut, which suggests they are not selling very well. The 16 GB RAM versions however are selling out fast as soon as they get stock.

 

[za9ra22]

I actually find it a bit reassuring that the base 8Gb RAM still exists in the new models. Firstly, I'm little interested in the armchair critics who always know better than Apple could possibly do because, well, it seems improbable that they do.

But more importantly, because Apple continue to support their products for years, it strongly suggests that they plan to manage bloat in macOS and their software, and in doing so help contain the idiocy of lazy and sloppy coding that seems to prevail these days.

It is perhaps easy to forget that we managed some pretty stunning functionality in systems with less RAM in the past, and that more RAM now isn't giving the majority of us anything much better. While there are use cases that warrant more memory, I don't think it is justifiable to expect all of us having to pay the price for hardware we don't need.

Where there is a clear issue is the cost of upgrades. I know the mob mentality is that Apple are leveraging this pricing into larger profit, and though true to an extent it's also a simplification of segregating products to reduce cannibalization and ignoring the supply chain - which isn't just about parts and their costs, but also manufacturing costs, production lines, and projections on the time product is held in stock before sale.

Personally, I'd rather see the 8/256 base model with a $250 premium to a single 16/512, but I'd bet Apple have internal studies showing costs would rise on the 'mass market' model due to longer shelf time.

Interestingly on Amazon UK, the base 15" MBA M3 8/256 has already had a £50 price cut, which suggests they are not selling very well. The 16 GB RAM versions however are selling out fast as soon as they get stock.

This is nonsense. Amazon's pricing doesn't work like that, and even if it did, the one thing you failed to mention is that the lower price only applies to the 'starlight' model. All the others are still at the intro price point.

Also, since Apple don't tell us how many of what model they have sold, let alone how many of each are in the supply chain, there's no way to even know what model is selling and what isn't.

 

[geta]

Interestingly on Amazon UK, the base 15" MBA M3 8/256 has already had a £50 price cut, which suggests they are not selling very well. The 16 GB RAM versions however are selling out fast as soon as they get stock.

Also the used market is fluted with base (8GB/256GB) M1/M2 MBA models, but hardly you can find versions with 16GB RAM and higher storage.

That means many people not so satisfied from the base models…

 

[snipr125]

I actually find it a bit reassuring that the base 8Gb RAM still exists in the new models. Firstly, I'm little interested in the armchair critics who always know better than Apple could possibly do because, well, it seems improbable that they do.

But more importantly, because Apple continue to support their products for years, it strongly suggests that they plan to manage bloat in macOS and their software, and in doing so help contain the idiocy of lazy and sloppy coding that seems to prevail these days.

It is perhaps easy to forget that we managed some pretty stunning functionality in systems with less RAM in the past, and that more RAM now isn't giving the majority of us anything much better. While there are use cases that warrant more memory, I don't think it is justifiable to expect all of us having to pay the price for hardware we don't need.

Where there is a clear issue is the cost of upgrades. I know the mob mentality is that Apple are leveraging this pricing into larger profit, and though true to an extent it's also a simplification of segregating products to reduce cannibalization and ignoring the supply chain - which isn't just about parts and their costs, but also manufacturing costs, production lines, and projections on the time product is held in stock before sale.

Personally, I'd rather see the 8/256 base model with a $250 premium to a single 16/512, but I'd bet Apple have internal studies showing costs would rise on the 'mass market' model due to longer shelf time.

This is nonsense. Amazon's pricing doesn't work like that, and even if it did, the one thing you failed to mention is that the lower price only applies to the 'starlight' model. All the others are still at the intro price point.

Also, since Apple don't tell us how many of what model they have sold, let alone how many of each are in the supply chain, there's no way to even know what model is selling and what isn't.

Im not against the base model at all, but Apple should have bumped it up to 12 GB, using the 6GB RAM modules used in the MBP’s (2 x 6), whilst retaining the same price point. The Max tech video showing the 8GB vs 16GB model MBA M3 does clearly show the 8GB model seriously lacking in some tasks though (basically bottlenecking the M3).

 

[redheeler]

But more importantly, because Apple continue to support their products for years, it strongly suggests that they plan to manage bloat in macOS and their software, and in doing so help contain the idiocy of lazy and sloppy coding that seems to prevail these days.

The legacy of 5400 RPM HDDs suggests that Apple doesn’t care how well MacOS runs on new base-model Mac hardware, let alone older models. Sure, some people would’ve returned them for being slow, but Apple isn’t stupid and calculated that it can absorb the return cost with the massive margin of the upgrades.

 

[za9ra22]

The legacy of 5400 RPM HDDs suggests that Apple doesn’t care how well MacOS runs on new base-model Mac hardware, let alone older models. Sure, some people would’ve returned them for being slow, but Apple isn’t stupid and calculated that it can absorb the return cost with the massive margin of the upgrades.

I'm not in a position to know what Apple has and hasn't calculated, and I really don't much care. They build stuff, and if it suits my needs and want it, I buy. If it doesn't, I don't. Trying to get into the mind of a vast multinational corporation seems fruitless.

Nor am I greatly interested in the commentaries, since what others think or don't think doesn't matter at all. I do appreciate the time and thought in your reply and it is appreciated, but my opinion remains my opinion because it's based on my experience, observation and what I do know.

 

[Mainsail]

Or more likely that Apple sold a lot more 8GB than 16GB, and that people who pay more for a product hold onto it for longer.

 

[Torty]

Why is ram such a big topic again? When computers had spinning hard drives it was very important cause swapping was VERY slow And annoying. But then the SSDs came and gave the computers a speed boost. So what happened?

 

[za9ra22]

Why is ram such a big topic again? When computers had spinning hard drives it was very important cause swapping was VERY slow And annoying. But then the SSDs came and gave the computers a speed boost. So what happened?

What happened is that lots of people didn't realize what makes and difference and what doesn't.

 

[Torty]

What happened is that lots of people didn't realize what makes and difference and what doesn't.

Never had memory problems with my 8GB 2012 13” MBP Running mojave. Seems macOS lost it’s RAM efficiency over time or it’s the apple silicon not good with it with all the RAM complaints I can read.

 

[za9ra22]

Never had memory problems with my 8GB 2012 13” MBP Running mojave. Seems macOS lost it’s RAM efficiency over time or it’s the apple silicon not good with it with all the RAM complaints I can read.

I don't have any issues with 8Gb RAM either. None at all. There was all this fuss and stuff about memory pressure so I watched mine like a hawk until I realized that of course, doing that actually caused a problem rather than simply monitored it, given Activity Monitor is a bit of a RAM hog itself.

So I gave up and just use my computers for the stuff I bought them for, and have experienced no issues whatsoever. I even switched back to my 2018 MBP, which also has 'just' 8Gb, but that doesn't show any issues either - in fact the only complaint about using it is that it's one of the 'Touch Bar' models, and I really don't like that feature at all.

Of course I only have 4Gb in my 2009 iBook, and even worse, 2Gb in my 2006 17-inch MBP, yet they both work perfectly on their last-available iterations of MacOS.

Armchair experts always know better than the rest of us however, so I know I must just not be using my computers right that I don't have all these problems. Not even thermal throttling. Imagine that, an entire aluminium case, and it actually works as a heatsink, who'd have thought?!

 

[Algr]

Why is ram such a big topic again? When computers had spinning hard drives it was very important cause swapping was VERY slow And annoying. But then the SSDs came and gave the computers a speed boost. So what happened?

What happened is that swapping is going to shorten the life of an SSD that you can't replace.

 

[za9ra22]

What happened is that swapping is going to shorten the life of an SSD that you can't replace.

What is curious about this is that SSDs have been in use for quite a few years now, in very RAM constrained systems with fairly high swap counts - Windows systems for example - and yet these failures are not all that common.

Indeed, actual experts are commonly saying that modern SSDs are likely to exceed traditional HD lifespans.
https://www.howtogeek.com/322856/how-long-do-solid-state-drives-really-last/ (apologies for the ads on the site) makes interesting reading, and seems a reliable enough take on the subject.

 

[Torty]

What happened is that swapping is going to shorten the life of an SSD that you can't replace.

My 10 years old SSD still runs very fine.

 

[Torty]

I don't have any issues with 8Gb RAM either. None at all. There was all this fuss and stuff about memory pressure so I watched mine like a hawk until I realized that of course, doing that actually caused a problem rather than simply monitored it, given Activity Monitor is a bit of a RAM hog itself.

So I gave up and just use my computers for the stuff I bought them for, and have experienced no issues whatsoever. I even switched back to my 2018 MBP, which also has 'just' 8Gb, but that doesn't show any issues either - in fact the only complaint about using it is that it's one of the 'Touch Bar' models, and I really don't like that feature at all.

Of course I only have 4Gb in my 2009 iBook, and even worse, 2Gb in my 2006 17-inch MBP, yet they both work perfectly on their last-available iterations of MacOS.

Armchair experts always know better than the rest of us however, so I know I must just not be using my computers right that I don't have all these problems. Not even thermal throttling. Imagine that, an entire aluminium case, and it actually works as a heatsink, who'd have thought?!

Ah I see. Encountered that too but it never was a ram problem but bad coded apps or scripts. Growing over time taking more and more ram which is never freed. More ram only postpones the problem.
Closing and restarting the apps or the website will do the trick.

 

[Mainsail]

What happened is that swapping is going to shorten the life of an SSD that you can't replace.

Is there good data on the difference of SSD life in real world usage between MBA's with 8GB RAM and 16GB RAM?

 

[krspkbl]

has anyone saw benchmarks comparing 16gb to 24gb on the M3 air?

everyone wants to talk about 8GB vs 16GB. the only videos i can find are for the M2 but i want to know if the M3 requires more RAM and if I should return my 16GB to get 24GB.

 

[Howard2k]

What happened is that swapping is going to shorten the life of an SSD that you can't replace.

Have you looked at the stats and calculated how much swapping you’d have to do per day to put a decent dent in it?