This...And Apple now also realized it, especially with the development of AI and resulting memory usage. Luckily you can now just point him to the base MBPs and MBAs since it now comes with 16GB without added costs.
8GB RAM in M3 MacBook Pro Proves the Bottleneck in Real-World Tests
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
chucker23n1
macrumors G3
It would for 24 GiB. Or for giving them a 1 TB SSD.
But for 16? Since Apple has now changed the base config to 16, I feel vindicated in my assumption that it's reasonably for almost anyone to have that much RAM nowadays.
Having said that, I don't have data on what his memory pressure would be like if he only had 8. It's possible he'd rarely run into orange. But why give him a device that's already reaching its limits on day one?
Not according to slippery slope “I don’t think it costs x amount more to use x higher spec, and anything less than that is “useless” or a “bad value”, so base models should be equipped with it, and if they aren’t then Apple’s just being mean and greedy”, arguments…
And since Apple is going to release an M5 chip later this year or early next year, I feel vindicated in saying that the M4 isn’t good enough for anyone, and they shouldn’t buy an M4 chip… Apple changes specs occasionally, that doesn’t mean the prior models were useless or are a “bad value”. For the vast majority of people, 8GB continues to be a good choice, and plenty sufficient for their needs…
I think a large part of the problem here is that many of the people here claiming that an 8GB Apple Silicon Mac is “useless” or a “bad value” have never actually used one… And it shows. I proved that an 8GB M1 Mac can run several heavy apps simultaneously, apps that you’re average person would never run in the first place, and never expect to run on a base spec of just about anything… There’s no way that someone who just uses a dozen web apps is going to be running into problems when I can run a dozen web pages in Safari, plus several projects open in Affinity Photo, Designer, a project open in Blender, and several other open apps.
An 8GB Apple Silicon Mac is not “reaching its limits on day one”. Not unless you have an extremely taxing workflow. For most average users, they would be nowhere close to reaching its limits. And there’s no point in paying more for excess RAM that won’t be needed…
Which is why all Apple Intelligence features run great on my 8GB M1 Mac, and why iPhones designed for Apple Intelligence shipped with 16GB instead of 8GB, because it really needs so much more RAM…. Right? I didn’t think so…
The added cost of new vs buying an even better value refurbished or pre-owned 8GB Apple Silicon Mac that will continue to provide great value for many people for many years to come…
The 6GB iPhone 15 would like to have a word
a year old phone cannot run the main feature of the next os release.And you assume the only limit there is the RAM. If RAM were the only limit, I’m sure that Apple could provide a more limited version of it for older iPhones. But there are also other considerations to take into account, such as battery runtime, Neural Engine (which is significantly improved on newer iPhones), CPU efficiency and power, etc. You assume that RAM is the only differentiator, but it is not.The 6GB iPhone 15 would like to have a word
And that is beside the point, because you are trying to claim that Macs need 16GB RAM in order to run AI. But this simply isn’t true. Apple’s iPhones specifically designed for AI have 8GB RAM. And 8GB Macs can run every Apple Intelligence feature. So no, AI does not require more than 8GB of RAM… All of Apple’s AI features run on the 8GB models, and since Apple just put out their iPhones specifically designed for AI with 8GB RAM, that tells me that more RAM is not required for Apple’s AI plans…
chucker23n1
macrumors G3
Except that it does run on M1, with the identical CPU and NPU of the A14. Thus, it’s evidently the RAM.
Could they have shipped a limited version with less RAM? Yes, in the same way they could’ve shipped a version that relies more heavily on PCC.
They didn’t, because
- it would take more engineering effort,
- it would lead to fewer sales,
- and all that to give people a worse user experience.
jlc1978
macrumors 603
For me the question to ask is “would 8gb performed satisfactorily?” Memory pressure and swsp file use that doesn’t impact real world performance and not valid measures in that case, IMHO. YMMV.
Sorry but memory pressure certainly impacts performance. As said: if my m1pro seems somewhat sluggish it is because my memory runs into yellow (I first notice the sluggishness and then check the activity monitor). It’s never the CPU that is struggling. And this is with 16GB…Safari and web outlook for work do apparently not like each other and eats ram like candy after a while.
And I do like Macs (MBP m1p 16gb/1tb and a iPhone 13 mini). But a fan? I just in general like Macs. Definitely more than windows. I like the simplicity, while it still allows you to go into the terminal and do technical stuff. The Apple silicon was a fantastic leap. But that does not mean you cannot critique Apple. And there is a lot to criticize lately I feel.
For me it is the standard apps that are starting to get worse: Photos in particular has just gotten more of dedicated app for iPhone than anything that is useful with a real camera. But that is off-topic.
The M1 is not identical to the A14. And there’s also the considerations of battery runtime, etc. There is not definitive evidence that RAM is the only reason older iPhones didn’t get Apple Intelligence. And the point is that iPhones with 8GB RAM can run every Apple Intelligence feature, and will likely do so for the foreseeable future since they were specifically designed to do so. And so will 8GB Macs…
And many people’s workflows don’t cause high memory pressure on an 8GB Apple Silicon Mac. I already proved several heavy apps that most people wouldn’t even try to run on a base spec computer can all run simultaneously on an 8GB M1 Mac without issue, and without any “sluggishness”…
I don’t believe there’s much to criticize. I think it can seem like it when following content creators who prop up artificial clickbait scandals to keep engagement up, but this is merely the result of spin. Some content creators can try to find anything to spin as a scandal.
So why would Apple up the ram to 16GB? If 8GB is enough to do all these heavy apps at the same time without sluggishness? Again, I even notice it with 16GB doing multitasking with several apps at the same time. But you already have the answer:
Oh come on….
Because they chose to? We don’t really know why they did. But what we do know for a fact is that 8GB Apple Silicon Macs can run every Apple Intelligence feature, so it clearly isn’t that… Perhaps it’s part of their push into AAA gaming, who knows… Maybe it was to stop the complaining from some content creators. We simply don’t know.
I shared the photographic evidence. 8GB Apple Silicon Macs can do quite a bit beyond what the average user likely needs or expects to do on a base spec. Of course some should go with higher configurations, but many should be fine with 8GB Apple Silicon Macs for the foreseeable future…
And I don’t believe there’s much to criticize, unless some content creators are looking for things to twist and blow out of proportion into an artificial scandal…
chucker23n1
macrumors G3
Memory pressure and use of swap files by definition impact real-world performance. If they didn't, there would be no point in measuring much less prominently displaying high memory pressure as orange or red, and you might as well always be storing things in swap.
If your point here is "oh, but it's not that bad", that's too subjective to possibly refute. I think a system that hits orange memory pressure every day is bad, and I would advise someone whom that happens to to return it within the 14-day window in favor of one with more RAM. But the sneakier issue is that it doesn't usually happen within those 14 days. It happens after a major system upgrade or two, or when some third-party software starts using more RAM, which if you look over the course of computing history is inevitable. Mac OS X once ran on 128 MiB RAM, as did the original iPhoneOS. The current base on Macs is 128 times that, within just 24 years; the current iPhone base is 64 times that, within 18 years. You can easily extrapolate a trajectory where, if you keep the Mac for a while, you'll eventually be using more RAM.
The point is that the normal workflows of many base spec users don’t create high memory pressure on 8GB Apple Silicon Macs. Not even close. And I ran several heavy apps that nobody would really even expect to run on a base-spec, simultaneously, and there were no noticeable changes in performance at all…
People would have to be pushing their 8GB Apple Silicon Mac really hard to get into high memory pressure… And there isn’t any “orange” memory pressure on Mac. There’s green, yellow, and red… As I said, people would have to push their system extremely hard in order to get to the red memory pressure. Many people use 8GB Apple Silicon Macs, and never get anywhere near red memory pressure every day…
Again, I think one of the primary issues here is that people saying 8GB is “inadequate”, “useless”, or a “bad value” have never actually used an 8GB Apple Silicon Mac before.
And practically nobody will be using their laptop for 24 years. Most people plan to upgrade their laptop about every 4-6 years. Macs receive software updates for around 6-8 years. Practically nobody is going to be using a base spec computer for a decade, let alone 24 years. Besides, you err in assuming RAM requirements will increase at a consistently fast rate as it did in the past. But that doesn’t follow. RAM requirements have largely flattened out over the last several years. The RAM requirements of most apps aren’t steadily rising. They’ve largely remained consistent. And as software improves, many apps will actually become more efficient as well…
jlc1978
macrumors 603
My point is that for many users, they probably really hit a level that causes and issue, so for tehm buying 16GB machines is a waste of money. In some cases, simply practicing a few good computing things is warranted as well; such as not having a whole bunch of tabs open, 99% of which you have no idea they are open. I suspect all some users would do is simply have 10x teh tabs open and wonder why a 32GB machine slows...
If you are doing work that causes issues that impact productivity, that's a different issue.
I fully agree. It's a matter of matching machine to use case.
Upgrading over the course of computing history is inevitable as well. It's one thing to say I anticipate my needs will grow in the next year or two and so I need this, vs. only needing current capabilities and not planning to add more resource intensive apps. Someone who only needs to get mail, use the web and write short documents or light spreadsheets is a different use case than someone considering running a LLM locally.
Sure. Software bloat is real.
The question is how long will you keep your Mac and what do you see as how your needs will evolve. Just because a new OS is available also doesn't mean you need to upgrade as long as Apple provides security upgrades. Once you get past that, even the most powerful machines will be limited in upgradability so it's not like you're getting extra years with more power; and I suspect many real power users are upgrading more often then 5 years.
I suspect so as well. Anecdotally, I know a number of people that get along quite well with an 8GB Mac laptop; for some it's overkill and teh only reason they use it instead of an older iPad is the keyboard and larger screen.
Much of the angst is simply tech spec measurbation, something that occurs with any gear, from audio to cameras to computers... Techies will argue incessantly over specs that do no matter to most real life users; the internet just made it easier.
in putting more than 2GB RAM inside a computer
Load the OS on ram, the rest can run fine on swap according to some here. 8GB might be enough for some, but literary the last comment in the “still rocking m1” forum thread:
And that whole thread gives you a nice insight: most people “still” rocking m1 have 16gb or more. The 8GB are itching to upgrade or already did….
That is one of my main points: build quality, processor, screen, trackpad, keyboard are great. Will last very long. Battery can get replaced after a while. But 8GB ram is holding back how long you can use it for. My bet: MacOS 27 will have features that will require 12GB or more.
That’s a strawman argument. People have made two separate but related points here: one, that 8GB is more than enough for plenty of people, and second, that swap memory is not something to be afraid of, it’s normal functionality of computers for over a decade… Nobody has claimed that the system should run entirely on swap. Many people using 8GB Apple Silicon Macs barely touch any swap memory if any at all. And even if they do end up using some swap memory for heavier loads, it’s not as if that’s an issue, modern computers support swap memory for a reason, and it’s a completely normal part of the system. Some act as if swap memory is the worst thing that could ever happen to a computer, ignoring computers are designed to support it, and have for many years.in putting more than 2GB RAM inside a computer
8GB might be enough for some, but literary the last comment in the “still rocking m1” forum thread:
And that whole thread gives you a nice insight: most people “still” rocking m1 have 16gb or more. The 8GB are itching to upgrade or already did….
That is one of my main points: build quality, processor, screen, trackpad, keyboard are great. Will last very long. Battery can get replaced after a while. But 8GB ram is holding back how long you can use it for. My bet: MacOS 27 will have features that will require 12GB or more.
All subjective. You’re subjective take about other people’s subjective takes in a different thread. That is irrelevant…
chucker23n1
macrumors G3
Maybe, but I don't think so. 27 will be the first release not to run on Intel, and I think it would be weird to use the same cut-off to also say, "it technically runs on all ARM Macs, but if you use the base RAM, some features we showed at dubdub won't actually be available". I think that's too aggressive. It wouldn't be if, even back in 2020, M1 Macs had started at 12, but they didn't.
Ok maybe you are right. But the iPhone 15 not being able to run the main feature of the OS the year after its release makes you think…
And yes, its all subjective just like the 8GB is fine take.
chucker23n1
macrumors G3
“Source: I made it up.”
That has nothing to do with RAM. That’s only because some Apple Intelligence features had to be delayed. And most of the Apple Intelligence features already are available, and run great on the 8GB Apple Silicon Macs and iPhones.
8GB Apple Silicon Macs are a great value for many people, and will continue to be so for many years to come… And it’s a non-subjective fact that I proved that the 8GB M1 Mac can run many heavy apps that most people wouldn’t even use, let alone expect to use on a base-spec computer…
No, you can actually try running software on an 8GB Apple Silicon Mac and see that most average software your average user is likely to use doesn’t come anywhere close to using gobs of swap memory. There is nothing made up with actual tests. I proved that an 8GB M1 Mac can run several heavy apps most wouldn’t use or expect to use on a base spec simultaneously. Running Safari, Mail, and Calendar is not going to cook the computer… 🙄
Still getting notifications for this thread and still hilarious as before.
We can argue about what's considered expensive, "elitist" or any other narrative you would like to run with. The fact of the matter is that the RAM issue started popping up more and more as macOS itself along with third-party applications were getting more demanding.
Using anecdotal evidence is silly when raw numbers are displayed right in the opening post of this thread. If your counter is that most "don't use" their computer that way then you not only have entirely missed the point, but have also inferred that because a lower spec machine might work for your particular use-case then it should be fine for most people.
As stated before, Apple isn't in the charity business. This was a decision made internally, but also reviewers who were specifically highlighting the ridiculousness of seeing the true horsepower of these incredibly powerful processors essentially locked away behind a $200 paywall.
If even after all that you still have this warped view of what "elitism" is then I believe we are looking at different definitions of the term.
We can argue about what's considered expensive, "elitist" or any other narrative you would like to run with. The fact of the matter is that the RAM issue started popping up more and more as macOS itself along with third-party applications were getting more demanding.
Using anecdotal evidence is silly when raw numbers are displayed right in the opening post of this thread. If your counter is that most "don't use" their computer that way then you not only have entirely missed the point, but have also inferred that because a lower spec machine might work for your particular use-case then it should be fine for most people.
As stated before, Apple isn't in the charity business. This was a decision made internally, but also reviewers who were specifically highlighting the ridiculousness of seeing the true horsepower of these incredibly powerful processors essentially locked away behind a $200 paywall.
If even after all that you still have this warped view of what "elitism" is then I believe we are looking at different definitions of the term.
That doesn’t follow. By your argument, anything short of the 128GB RAM spec is “limiting” the M4’s power, and that the true horsepower of these incredibly powerful processors are essentially locked behind a $3,100 paywall… That’s a faulty argument. You could claim that anything short of the highest spec is “limiting” so there shouldn’t be a base spec model, there should just be one model maxed out at the highest spec…
All the original “test” from that clickbait YouTuber “proves” is that a 16GB M3 Mac can perform better in a few cherry-picked heavier niche workloads than an 8GB M3 Mac. You could make the exact same video pitting a 32GB Mac against a 16GB one. It proves nothing. Nobody is arguing an 8GB M3 Mac performs identically under all workloads as a 16GB M3 Mac…
And I already proved that an 8GB M1 Mac can run several heavy apps most people don’t use, and wouldn’t expect to run on a base-spec laptop, and I ran them simultaneously without issue…
8GB Apple Silicon Macs are a great value for many people, and will continue to be for many years to come…
Last edited: