2024 MacBook Air still 8GB Unified Memory

[za9ra22]

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

I saw a study a couple of years ago which mapped solid state storage failure rate vs capacity, and there was a pattern showing that the smaller the total capacity, the faster the failure tended to occur. Even so, the difference wasn't major, and this included microSD and SD cards, which are not intended for heavy exercising, and are of course low capacity in comparison so would tend to sway the result in that direction.

Even then, I know of systems such as Raspberry Pis which have been in service for many years in fairly intensive use cases, and are still running happily with their original microSD cards.

The article I linked above does make the point that 256Gb SSDs would be expected to fail faster than larger capacities, but it also suggests decades of use would be required to write the data volume failure would be expected to need.

 

[turbineseaplane]

It’s a bit ironic that you “stop buying Macs” but instead you building yourself Hackintosh…

What’s ironic?
He likes the OS but not the hardware options and value … thus “Hackintosh”

Where is the irony?

 

[krspkbl]

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

This is true. Swap will put stress on your SSD and it won't last as long. You can't replace the SSD in your Mac

but by the time it actually happens you won't care because you'll probably have upgraded to a new computer.

I put an SSD in my MacBook in 2008 and even though MacOS didn't fully support it and I kept it for 4 years there was no issues with it.

Ever since then I've been using SSDs. I use my computers for more than just day to day stuff so I use a lot of RAM. I think the worst I've saw any SSD degrade was after 4 years it got to 97% health. Keep in mind, this was a 250GB drive that had it's full capacity written over ~82x (~20TB). Larger capacity drives are more durable. That was drive rated/warrantied up to 2400 TBW (x120 more than I used it) so yeah it'd have lasted me a lot longer but I needed to upgrade to a drive with more storage capacity.

If I bought a Mac today with 256GB drive then I think I'd feel very safe and confident to keep it for 4-5 years without having to worry about the RAM wearing down the SSD.

Both of my 5 year old 2TB SSDs are still at 100% health

 

[Mainsail]

I saw a study a couple of years ago which mapped solid state storage failure rate vs capacity, and there was a pattern showing that the smaller the total capacity, the faster the failure tended to occur. Even so, the difference wasn't major, and this included microSD and SD cards, which are not intended for heavy exercising, and are of course low capacity in comparison so would tend to sway the result in that direction.

Even then, I know of systems such as Raspberry Pis which have been in service for many years in fairly intensive use cases, and are still running happily with their original microSD cards.

The article I linked above does make the point that 256Gb SSDs would be expected to fail faster than larger capacities, but it also suggests decades of use would be required to write the data volume failure would be expected to need.

Thanks for the reply. I can see if I spent a lot of time staring at Active Monitor and obsessing over my memory pressure, then I might convince myself that there is a problem. But, for the typical base configuration MBA user, I think you are much more likely to replace the computer before it becomes an issue. You are probably more likely to have the computer lost, stolen, or damaged.

In our family, we have owned numerous base configuration MBAs and never had an SSD issue.

 

[Mainsail]

It seems like this whole "8GB is not enough" narrative is based on 3 arguments:

• The computer will slow down under memory pressure using certain apps or with lots of tabs open in Safari. However, actual owners of base configuration MBAs do not experience slowing or problems in real world use. This is probably because these users aren't running these memory intensive applications or opening a huge number of tabs. Anyway, users report a high level of customer satisfaction and positive user experience.
• The SSD will fail because of excess swapping due to insufficient memory. However, there doesn't seem to be real world evidence that MacBooks with more RAM are experiencing fewer SSD failures than those with less RAM. In general, SSD failures just don't seem to be a major issue with these MBAs. I believe people are more likely to replace their computers before this becomes an issue (see below).
• More RAM will "future proof" your MBA. However, there really is no such thing as "future proofing" in tech. Too many things can happen....especially with a laptop. It can be lost, stolen, or damaged. It can lose eligibility for OS updates (about 5-6 years), which are determined by Model/Year not RAM. New MBA features (MagSafe, camera quality, battery life, etc..) might compel you to replace your computer. A new computing paradigm might draw you to an alternative (i.e. iPad Ultra). Sure, some people keep their computers for 10 years, but I would not bet on it.

BTW - I am not knocking those that need or want more RAM. I get that Apples pricing for RAM and storage upgrades are high. It does not hit me because I don’t need it……but, I can certainly sympathize with those that do need it. It would be a bummer to have to pay for those upgrades.

 

[turbineseaplane]

You can't replace the SSD in your Mac

but by the time it actually happens you won't care because you'll probably have upgraded to a new computer.

Sure be nice to have the choice to "just replace the SSD and keep using the computer" though...

This way of operating is just an "e-waste creation" operation by Apple

 

[chucker23n1]

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.

That's not easy to benchmark.

You already have a 16, so open Activity Monitor, switch to the Memory tab, start doing heavy lifting on your laptop the way you would regularly work, and see if Memory Pressure reaches the yellow (let alone red) part.

 

[chucker23n1]

More RAM will "future proof" your MBA. However, there really is no such thing as "future proofing" in tech.

This is a wild counter-argument.

It can lose eligibility for OS updates (about 5-6 years), which are determined by Model/Year not RAM.

This is true. But for the updates to the OS and apps you do get, the question is: do you eventually hit a ceiling? If so, you're less likely to have hit it with more RAM. And given that the base RAM hasn't been upgraded in twelve years, we're getting close to the point where even average users would really benefit from a little extra.

 

[za9ra22]

Sure be nice to have the choice to "just replace the SSD and keep using the computer" though...

This way of operating is just an "e-waste creation" operation by Apple

Apple encourages owners to trade their old devices in, and themselves recycle and use recycled materials. In the US, Best Buy (one of the largest Apple resellers) offer trade-in options too. Apple stuff generally holds value well so there's a very health resale trade via eBay and the like. There is zero reason these days that any electronic device of any kind needs to go to 'e-waste'. As and when they do, it's the user responsible for that outcome.

Beating this drum is getting quite bizarre. There are many parts in modern computers, not to mention other products such as TVs, which fail more frequently than SSDs, and are not replaceable. Apple is a tiny corner of this 'problem'.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Beating this drum is getting quite bizarre.

So is your constant quoting me and replying specifically to me
No need to spend time refuting me specifically

Don't like my posts, just pass right over them please

 

[za9ra22]

So is your constant quoting me and replying specifically to me
No need to spend time refuting me specifically

You post something that is nonsensical or inaccurate, or an opinion I don't agree with, and I can't see any reason not to reply. I'll check the rules if you wish to make sure, but I'd presume a moderator will tell me if I break them.

It isn't intended to be personal. It's intended to rebut, and almost as often agree, with your point.

 

[Mainsail]

This is a wild counter-argument.



This is true. But for the updates to the OS and apps you do get, the question is: do you eventually hit a ceiling? If so, you're less likely to have hit it with more RAM. And given that the base RAM hasn't been upgraded in twelve years, we're getting close to the point where even average users would really benefit from a little extra.

Well, what does "future-proofing" mean? If it means getting 5 years of good everyday performance from your computer, then I would argue that this can be done with the base configuration. I have never had an issue getting 5 years of reliable solid performance from my base MBAs or the numerous MBAs purchased for the family (college students and office use). If it means getting 10 years from your computer, then I would argue it is a bad bet. There is a low probability most people will keep the same laptop that long for all of the reasons I mentioned. I didn't say zero probability....but, it is unlikely.

As for how long base RAM has been 8GB, the MBA used 4GB base RAM in the 2015 Model......so, it has not been 12 years. I suspect Apple will increase the base to 12GB in the next release. But, my 8GB M2 MBA will not explode on this news, just like my 2014 base MBA did not suddenly become useless when Apple increase the base MBA configuration to 8GB. It will continue to perform well for at least a 2-3 more years. At that point, I will have owned it over 5 years and will be looking to trade anyway to get new features available on the latest MBA model.....or maybe iPadOS and productivity apps will finally be at a place where I will want to jump to the iPad as my primary device. Who knows. 5 years in tech is a long time. 10 years is an eternity.

 

[Chuckeee]

It seems like this whole "8GB is not enough" narrative is based on 3 arguments:

• The computer will slow down under memory pressure using certain apps or with lots of tabs open in Safari. However, actual owners of base configuration MBAs do not experience slowing or problems in real world use. This is probably because these users aren't running these memory intensive applications or opening a huge number of tabs. Anyway, users report a high level of customer satisfaction and positive user experience.
• The SSD will fail because of excess swapping due to insufficient memory. However, there doesn't seem to be real world evidence that MacBooks with more RAM are experiencing fewer SSD failures than those with less RAM. In general, SSD failures just don't seem to be a major issue with these MBAs. I believe people are more likely to replace their computers before this becomes an issue (see below).
• More RAM will "future proof" your MBA. However, there really is no such thing as "future proofing" in tech. Too many things can happen....especially with a laptop. It can be lost, stolen, or damaged. It can lose eligibility for OS updates (about 5-6 years), which are determined by Model/Year not RAM. New MBA features (MagSafe, camera quality, battery life, etc..) might compel you to replace your computer. A new computing paradigm might draw you to an alternative (i.e. iPad Ultra). Sure, some people keep their computers for 10 years, but I would not bet on it.

BTW - I am not knocking those that need or want more RAM. I get that Apples pricing for RAM and storage upgrades are high. It does not hit me because I don’t need it……but, I can certainly sympathize with those that do need it. It would be a bummer to have to pay for those upgrades.

Well it seems that there is actually a 4th argument:

• Apple RAM upgrades are expensive and I need more RAM. So if I can convince people the minimum 8GB entry level is insufficient and force Apple to raise it, I can get more RAM without having to pay Apple’s outrageous RAM upgrade prices. It doesn’t matter if others need more RAM or not, it is just about me saving money

 

[mikehalloran]

Having done a ton a lot of alpha and beta testing for many companies over the last few years on an M1 MacBook Air, I'm still waiting for its 8GB of unified RAM to not be enough. Hasn't happened yet.

I would never buy a machine with only 256GB storage but I don't have to—as long as I do so upfront.

That said, I maxed out my M2 Studio Ultra at 192GB RAM and 8TB storage because that meets my requirements but I still do my testing on that M1 MBAir.

 

[Algr]

[Apple's memory and storage prices are] a separate discussion.

It really isn't. Anyone who even suspects they are going to need more than the base model is going to have to look at those prices and feel ripped off.

If you buy PC you can just buy the base model. If it works, fine. If it is inadequate or if your needs change, you can add ram and storage later at a reasonable price. You used to be able to do this with Macs too, and it was part of why an 8-year-old mac could usually compete with current PCs. You could justify the higher price of Macs because they remain useful longer. That isn't true anymore. The practical demands of OSes and programs always go up, and being unprepared is not going to prevent it from happening.

Edit: Also, future-proofing includes resale value. A Mac that is still useful for someone else can help a power user pay for an upgrade.

 

[za9ra22]

It really isn't. Anyone who even suspects they are going to need more than the base model is going to have to look at those prices and feel ripped off.

If you buy PC you can just buy the base model. If it works, fine. If it is inadequate or if your needs change, you can add ram and storage later at a reasonable price. You used to be able to do this with Macs too, and it was part of why an 8-year-old mac could usually compete with current PCs. You could justify the higher price of Macs because they remain useful longer. That isn't true anymore. The practical demands of OSes and programs always go up, and being unprepared is not going to prevent it from happening.

Edit: Also, future-proofing includes resale value. A Mac that is still useful for someone else can help a power user pay for an upgrade.

You had me in pretty much complete agreement until the bit highlighted. The reason being that unlike the PC market where the OS and the hardware come from different origins, on the Mac side they don't.

Where I think that matters is precisely in this point - how the OS develops and bloats. With Windows, Microsoft can in essence do as they please, and within limits, hardware manufacturers will follow because they have to. We know, for example, that Windows 11 will run pretty reasonably in 8Gb RAM, particularly if effectively debloated. What we don't know, is what it may take to run Windows 12 or onward. Heck, we don't even know how far up the TPM chain even basic hardware requirements may be.

On the Mac side, there will be pressure on Apple to keep adding to macOS to compete with Windows, but they have a problem that constrains them and they can't escape: they have sold, at least up to now and for another year of current production if not more, 8Gb base systems which form a huge proportion of Mac sales. They can't (quickly) leave these products behind, nor can they hide behind a shield of 'it's not our problem' as Microsoft has done.

That's why I said elsewhere that in some ways it's comforting Apple are still selling 8Gb base systems, since as they continue to do so, in practical terms they continue to lengthen the 'future proofing' of these systems.

I can't say it matters to me, personally since my computers are bought for a purpose so as long as I got it right when I bought it, the thing will be good until it gives up the ghost. I also don't sell them so future value isn't meaningful. I realize that in both these respects I'm not necessarily 'normal'. But one way or another, Apple can't escape the need to continue support for 8Gb systems, which will impact how far and fast they can bloat macOS out further.

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[James Godfrey]

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.

Or it could just mean that they are buying in more and getting them cheaper per unit because they selling really well.

Whereas the 16GB models are made to order therefore stock levels are more sparse

 

[turbineseaplane]

(Checks YouTube for “upgrading RAM on Apple Silicon Macs”)

Umm.. yeah no

What on Earth are you talking about @DeepSix ?

My favorite part of the thumbnail is where it says “No one should try this”

 

[whitby]

I am a bit late to this party but I think we should admit that trying to get Apple to increase the base RAM in the MacBook Air is a waste of time. They think it is adequate for the average user. You may disagree but most of the people I know who purchased a machine with 8 GB seem perfectly happy (cost was their driver). I also know people who pay the extra money for 24 GB when they patently do not need it (looking at their usage etc.). Their driver was I must need it if it available. Not rational but fact. Apple are out to make money, end. And they do not have your satisfaction on their radar. Buy what you need (at least you have a choice), but don't expect them to sell a machine with 16GB of memory at the same price as their 8GB machines. They are playing the cost game so that they can claim they have a low cost entry level machine whether it satisfies the aficionados or not. And guess what, most people do not care. If they had enough people complaining that their 8GB was slow and unusable they would do something, but the fact is most people do not care.

 

[za9ra22]

Someone recently posted that Apple doesn't read macrumors, but as we know from the occasional mentions of unidentified machine identifiers popping up in the site's logs, they actually do. Not surprising since this is probably the largest and most widely visited, certainly amongst longest running, Apple 'user' sites around.

But they do know that the echo chamber of people here posting about RAM and SSD, or complaining about software or macOS bloat, don't represent their customers in any meaningful way. These are the people who just buy stuff, use it, and never have a problem or an interest in what's inside, how it works, or why it is the way it is. So when we complain about how new Macs will hit the landfill when their SSDs fail, and Apple have studies showing that actually, SSDs don't really do this in normal use, or how in this day and age an M3 MBA will choke if the user tries to actually do anything, and Apple's sales are robust and feedback positive with products flying out the door, it undermines not their credibility as a manufacturer, but ours as poorly informed and inaccurate pundits.

Which is a shame, because there are some things Apple does very badly right now, and where they can and should be justly criticized.

 

[geta]

Someone recently posted that Apple doesn't read macrumors, but as we know from the occasional mentions of unidentified machine identifiers popping up in the site's logs, they actually do. Not surprising since this is probably the largest and most widely visited, certainly amongst longest running, Apple 'user' sites around.

But they do know that the echo chamber of people here posting about RAM and SSD, or complaining about software or macOS bloat, don't represent their customers in any meaningful way. These are the people who just buy stuff, use it, and never have a problem or an interest in what's inside, how it works, or why it is the way it is. So when we complain about how new Macs will hit the landfill when their SSDs fail, and Apple have studies showing that actually, SSDs don't really do this in normal use, or how in this day and age an M3 MBA will choke if the user tries to actually do anything, and Apple's sales are robust and feedback positive with products flying out the door, it undermines not their credibility as a manufacturer, but ours as poorly informed and inaccurate pundits.

Which is a shame, because there are some things Apple does very badly right now, and where they can and should be justly criticized.

AKA the average Joe, who buys his device at a discount at major retail stores.

 

[DanneP]

I am a bit late to this party but I think we should admit that trying to get Apple to increase the base RAM in the MacBook Air is a waste of time. They think it is adequate for the average user. You may disagree but most of the people I know who purchased a machine with 8 GB seem perfectly happy (cost was their driver). I also know people who pay the extra money for 24 GB when they patently do not need it (looking at their usage etc.). Their driver was I must need it if it available. Not rational but fact. Apple are out to make money, end. And they do not have your satisfaction on their radar. Buy what you need (at least you have a choice), but don't expect them to sell a machine with 16GB of memory at the same price as their 8GB machines. They are playing the cost game so that they can claim they have a low cost entry level machine whether it satisfies the aficionados or not. And guess what, most people do not care. If they had enough people complaining that their 8GB was slow and unusable they would do something, but the fact is most people do not care.

I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish here. Are you defending the humongous cost of upgrading memory and storage? Are you trying to convince people to happily pay more because after all Apple is just trying to make money?

I can tell you this: Everybody here knows exactly why 10 bucks of RAM costs 200 buying it from Apple, we are not stupid. Still, we are allowed to express what we think of the price of a product. There is nothing wrong with that. 8 GB is definitely enough for a large part of the users, however, for some of us who needs more then that the extra 200 bucks for 16 GB is a deal breaker.

 

[Chuckeee]

8 GB is definitely enough for a large part of the users, however, for some of us who needs more then that the extra 200 bucks for 16 GB is a deal breaker.

Yes, Apple charges outrageous prices. But if you really need it, then you are forced to “just hold your nose” and pay it. And then you can complain. If it turns out to be just too expensive and you don’t buy it (or any other Apple product), that’s fine. But that means you didn’t really need it. And you can still complain. Please stop confusing a “want” with a “need”.

 

[whitby]

I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish here. Are you defending the humongous cost of upgrading memory and storage? Are you trying to convince people to happily pay more because after all Apple is just trying to make money?

I can tell you this: Everybody here knows exactly why 10 bucks of RAM costs 200 buying it from Apple, we are not stupid. Still, we are allowed to express what we think of the price of a product. There is nothing wrong with that. 8 GB is definitely enough for a large part of the users, however, for some of us who needs more then that the extra 200 bucks for 16 GB is a deal breaker.

I think there are two distinct points here:

1. Is 8 GB of RAM sufficient for a modern MacBook? I believe this thread started by postulating that it was not.

2. Your point is that the increase in cost for 16 GB is unreasonable and whether or not it is the minimum that Apple should be selling is almost moot. Since they choose to sell a machine with 8 GB and we can see the increase in cost that Apple charges for another 8 GB we can see that it is completely and utterly ridiculous.

I attempted to address the point 1 here and indicate that 'most' people who buy the Air are perfectly happy with 8GB of RAM. If the average person found that a MacBook Air was slow and not suitable for purpose, then Apple would not sell it. For me and, probably, you, 8GB is not sufficient for purpose and we need 16 GB and the increase in cost seems unreasonable.

Hence point 2 above in which I agree with you. Apple charge way too much for an increase of 8 GB of RAM. Apple are not going to stop selling machines with 8GB of RAM as that is sufficient for a 'most' people (what ever that is, but they do not complain and I am not talking about the people who frequent MacRumors). This gives them the ability to sell a so called entry level machine. The fact that they add so much for so little RAM for the next tier is abhorrent, but this is a money game. What we are all saying really is that Apple charge way too much for a 16 GB machine and the 8GB machine should be even lower cost. But it is not going to happen since they can sell a lot of machines with 8GB RAM at their current cost and apparently can get away with selling an extra 8 GB of RAM for $200. Ludicrous but fact unfortunately.

BTW I am also not saying we should not complain, and loudly, but hoping they are going to close the price difference between the 8 GB and 16 GB machines is probably hoping for too much.

 

[Mainsail]

^^Excellent summary of the issue. We should end this 18 page thread with this well reasoned post. But, I doubt it.