And that is why Apple decided to donate 8GB extra. They have all that data and know best (according to yourself). They see all these people running heavy apps with 8GB, “not a problem”. And they will be fine with 8GB for many years to come. And still, make 16GB the base…I guess Apple is running a charity.
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.
8GB RAM in M3 MacBook Pro Proves the Bottleneck in Real-World Tests
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That doesn’t follow. People still use an M1 chip fine even though Apple has rolled out an M4. Just because Apple changes specs doesn’t mean prior specs were “worthless” or a “bad value”… It simply means that Apple decided to change a spec…
For many people who aren’t doing heavy workflows, heavy into AAA gaming on a Mac (which even still hardly exists), etc., 8GB will likely continue to run the apps they’re using…. And even people with heavier workflows will likely be fine with 8GB models, I can run all of my professional graphic design software on an 8GB M1 Mac, plus other heavier niche apps like Blender, and it runs fine…
Apple changing to a 16GB spec doesn’t mean that everyone suddenly needs 16GB of RAM. That’s not how that works. Just like Apple releasing an M4 doesn’t suddenly make everyone need an M4 in place of an M2 or M1…
To save you the trouble:
Notably, Blender's raytracing acceleration was available as an option on the 16GB models, but was conspicuously absent on the 8GB MacBook Pro for an identical rendering job, suggesting the reduced memory pool actually prevents the GPU cores from utilizing certain features.
It's abhorrent that apple shipped such expensive computers with insufficient resources and no viable recourse to correct or address if needs change after the purchase is made. I’ve already commented on how this could be an added benefit to AppleCare+ consumers if they are willing to pay the extra fee for the service. Apple gets to keep their sweet, guaranteed profit margin on the parts and the consumers have the option to keep using otherwise perfectly usable machines a bit longer.
"they should have known better" on the consumer end is not a valid response.
neither is the idea that consumers should just get a brand new machine if such a small upgrade will help. This was the case for most of the entire history of personal computing and still is for most. Apple getting a pass for as long as they have has been the result of government officials not adequately doing their job protecting consumers. Eg: If it wasn’t for the EU we would still be using lightning cables. I would hope they would aggressively go after storage next.
The idea that consumers don’t care nor want such flexibility is not a viable response either for a variety of reasons. Especially when the same company continues to shove environmental goals every chance they get.
I understand this would appear odd to some browsing this forum (most notably you and just a few others in this thread), but it really is bad for consumers that has allowed Microsoft, Samsung and others to do more of the same and it should end.
On a much more serious scale this is becoming an ever bigger trend on automobiles which is unfortunate.
In this context RAM and CPU are not comparable. If you run, say, Cinema 4D on a processor that's half as fast it'll run at half the speed. If you run it with half of the RAM required then performance will drop off a cliff.
Exactly! The same people also claim that Pro in the MBP does not make it a “Pro” machine and that people do not look at specs. So what is it? People should know better, but should also not look at the specs because it does not matter and Pro does not say anything? And also completely agree with the rant on non upgradeability. I have done this to my own Intel MacBook (replace HDD with SSD, added ram) to give it another 2.5 years or so, and did the same to family members’s macbooks. Took 15 minutes tops. Transferring data was it the thing that costed time.
I mean, isn't this the exact response used to justify sideloading on iOS?
When I point out that it is possible to be led into installing malware on android devices, the common response is that users need to be responsible for their own security. They have a choice as to whether to sideload or not, and if anything uptowards happens to them, it's just too bad that they did not perform their due diligence.
Yet when it comes to picking the right specs on the Mac, users are somehow incapable of determining for themselves just how much ram they should need in a device. If I know that I would be better served with 16gb or even 32gb of ram, it's Apple's fault for offering an entry level model with 8gb ram (which I am totally under zero obligation to choose), and not mine for not going with a pro model, or paying to add more ram to my laptop.
My understanding is that the ram needs to be soldered to the motherboard in order to benefit from the performance gains of Apple Silicon. If you want a device that can be upgraded indefinitely, there are plenty of Windows laptops that fit the bill, but then you make a conscious decision to give up the performance and battery life benefits. You may also end up with a thicker device.
So the tradeoff isn't between having an upgradable laptop and one that isn't. But having to choose between upgradeability (a long term benefit, assuming you even plan to keep your laptop for that long), vs better performance and battery life right now (a benefit that would impact you for as long as you plan to keep your current laptop).
In short, life is all about tradeoffs, as it always has been.
Not really. You might want to read up on CAMM modules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAMM_(memory_module)
A. I don’t know what source you’re citing for that, and B. Even if 8GB base-spec models don’t support ray-tracing in Blender, who cares. Nobody expects to run Blender on a base-spec machine in the first place. And all the sculpting/modeling tools are there, which are what many are after when they use the app, ray tracing isn’t the main feature of the software… If you’re a professional 3D designer or animator, get a higher spec, you wouldn’t be buying a base spec regardless, even a 16GB wouldn’t be ideal for animation. The point is, many heavy apps can run simultaneously on an 8GB M1 Mac, including Blender, which most wouldn’t even expect to run on a base-spec model in the first place, and these apps run simultaneously without performance issues, something people tried to claim was “impossible” and something I proved with tests and screenshots…
It’s only your opinion that 8GB is “insufficient”. Many people think otherwise. And the 8GB models sold well, indicating many consumers found it to be sufficient as well. I personally know several individuals who bought an 8GB Apple Silicon Mac, even moving from Windows, and they are very happy with their purchases. 8GB models are more than enough for many people and a great value…
It absolutely is a valid response. If I buy a truck without a towing package, and then go to haul a big trailer all around the country without the proper specs for it, that’s on me, not the dealership… Same with this. It’s very simple, if you need more, then buy more. If you’re use-case is lighter as many people’s are, buy a base-spec. It really isn’t complicated…
And practically nobody cracks open their computer to replace fragile RAM. Many computers are moving to RAM on the SOC because of the benefits in efficiency, speed, etc. RAM cards are antique. More customers care about battery runtime and performance than replacing a component they probably haven’t even heard of, or wouldn’t bother to try to replace anyways even if they did know what it was. The percentage of people who actually take the time and risk to crack open their computer to swap out fragile boards and components is few and far between.
The government has no business in dictating what specs/features a company must sell in their products. That is far outside the proper scope of government authority. Lightning is perfectly fine, and they may have decided to move to USB-C since their other product lines were moving in that direction. But with such overstepping regulation, now nobody can really innovate a new port design. Because if they want to sell in the EU, they are forced by the arbitrary whims of an overreaching government to use one port, which eventually will probably be antiquated like the microUSB port the EU originally wanted to force on everyone…. Such government regulation is outside the proper scope of government authority, and harms innovation and free market competition… But that’s another debate altogether…
And so basically this proves what my side of the debate has said from the beginning, some want nicer specs but don’t want to just buy the spec they want/need. Rather than just buying the desired storage spec, have the government force a private business to give away one of their nicer specs for free in a base spec model…. A. That is again, outside the proper scope of government authority. And B. It proves that this really is a slippery slope, and some would even go as far as advocating for government to force a private business to give away the nicer spec they want for free in a base spec rather than just simply buying what they want/need… At that rate, why shouldn’t government force Apple to put 128GB of RAM and 8TB of storage in the base spec? It’s a slippery slope, it’s outside of the proper scope of government authority, and people can just buy the spec that they want, it’s very simple…
And most customers don’t care about such “flexibility”… They buy the computer they want with the specs they want, and they use it for several years, and then they upgrade to a new one. It’s very simple. Practically nobody is cracking open their expensive computer to swap fragile internal components…
It isn’t bad for consumers, because the majority of consumers don’t care about swapping out fragile internal components in their computers. They buy what they want, use it, and then eventually upgrade to something newer down the road. And consumers get to benefit in areas they do actually care more about, like battery runtime, performance, efficiency, etc…
Last edited:
And people can buy the spec they want/need (likely not a base spec anyways, even one with 16GB RAM) to run a heavy niche app like Cinema 4D. And most average users who don’t intend on using a heavy niche app like that can buy an 8GB model that is more than enough for their needs. The point is, Apple changing a spec doesn’t mean the prior spec was “bad”, “worthless”, a “bad value”, etc. It just means that Apple decided to change a spec…
Exactly. These same people on one hand try to argue that “people should know better” in one argument where it suits their position, but then imply that consumers aren’t even smart enough to figure out what spec they need…
People should pick the spec that they need for what they’re doing. A professional animator really shouldn’t be using a base spec in the first place, whether it has 8GB or 16GB of RAM… But the vast majority of people buying computers aren’t professional animators…
Yes, the RAM is soldered directly on the SOC so that it can benefit the chip with Unified Memory, which makes a huge boost in performance and efficiency. A. Data doesn’t have to be duplicated, it can be accessed directly by the SOC’s resources. B. The direct connection of the RAM boosts speed and efficiency, which are lost with a bus connection. And it also improves reliability. RAM card slots can fail easier if dust gets in there, or something gets loose. Admittedly, this doesn’t seem to be as common of an issue anymore with RAM card slots, but many newer PCs don’t use RAM card slots in the first place, so there’s probably less in distribution which would also impact how widespread of an issue it is. And if people are going to try to argue the “weakpoints” of soldered RAM, they should also acknowledge the downsides of antique RAM cards…
Exactly, life is all about tradeoffs. But some just seem to not want to just buy what they want/need, and even go so far as advocating for government to force a private business to give away nicer specs in a base spec rather than just buying the spec they need…
Last edited:
I already showed multiple examples of other competitors charging similar or higher prices for RAM upgrades in this thread. Apple’s upgrade pricing isn’t “insane”, it’s competitive with many other PC manufacturers.
Last edited:
It is, for obvious physical reasons, impossible for CAMM modules to be as power- and space-efficient as Apple's approach of soldering RAM chips on-package. Latency is lower because wires are shorter, and the overall case can be thinner and lighter because of lower mechanical complexity.
You can argue that CAMM modules are close enough, but you can't argue that they're just as good.
No, it isn't. That's an entirely different thread.
(Personally, even if upgrading from 8 to 16 had been just 50 dollars, I still think Apple should have had Macs start at 12 instead of 8 by around 2022/23.)
A. Again: in a year’s time, people might change jobs, find a new hobby or need more power from their computer. With 8 you are out of luck, while 16gb would get you much farther. Again, just read the “m1 still going strong” thread.
B. How is government interfering here to give better specs?? You really lost me there. Right to repair is something else. And Apple is not the only one in the cross hairs. Also other computer manufacturers and even tractor manufacturers like John Deere are being looked into.
Yes, completely agree here. CAMM modules aren’t the same or as good as RAM soldered to the SoC. 👍🏻
And yes, that’s a different debate.
I disagree with that, but I respect your opinion.
A. And people can decide to buy a higher spec if they’re worried about changing jobs (most jobs that require a computer provide a computer, or a big discount on the cost of one) or taking on some niche and heavy hobbies… Nobody is forced to buy a base spec model if they don’t want to…
B. Another form member in this thread literally said “I would hope they would aggressively go after storage next”, speaking in terms of the EU government. That isn’t “right to repair”… And Apple already provides replacement parts and even equipment people can rent to repair devices themselves. People absolutely can repair their own computer if they want to right now. Replacing a component with one spec with a different component with a different spec isn’t a repair…
Last edited:
Perhaps. It's like saying you might need a bigger car or a larger house after you get married and have children.
At the end of the day, it boils down to " I want Apple to give me more stuff for free". Nothing wrong with this sentiment; just admit it and own it, I guess?
Oof…renting expensive super large boxes to repair Apple devices. It is ridiculous. Few years back you only needed a Philips screw driver. That is called reluctant appliance…Going after storage next was most probably about making sure people can do it themselves. And why would I not be allowed to upgrade my machine myself? I buy a bike or car, I can upgrade or repair the brakes, tires whatever if I want to. Heck, I can ask a bike shop to do it for me. But that is a whole other debate. Apple just can do no wrong in your eyes I have the feeling. The whole point of the debate boils down to:
- 8GB is tiny
- it is not upgrade able after the fact (which I would understand a bit more for the m series processor), but:
- upgrades are crazy expensive. Only Microsoft charges similar silly prices.
This trinity makes it so crazy to me that there are people here defending it.
In the sense that you might make planning mistakes there as well, sure.
One difference is that family planning is usually over after a while; upgrading to newer computer hardware never really stops.
Well, the "free" part isn't true at all in my case. Not only did I get myself a 32 GiB RAM model, because 16 was barely going to cut it; I also gave each colleague at least 16.
A. You don’t have to rent large boxes for the vast majority of repairs, they just basically literally make all of the equipment a professional repair technician would have access to available for average people to rent if they want.
B. And the level of “repairability” of Macs/Apple devices is an entirely separate debate.
C. That is merely your speculation about what they meant, when the context clearly implies a different meaning. And there are people that are clearly arguing for that, and trying to use the same tired arguments but about storage. It goes to show this is a slippery slope, and you’ll always be able to pit a higher spec against the base spec, and claim Apple’s “limiting” the power of the base spec by not making it said higher spec. And some even go as far as advocating government to force private businesses to give away nicer specs in their base models…
D. I cannot replace the brakes in an F250 with brakes from a RAM truck with different specs. And there are some smaller sub-parts that are part of an assembly in vehicles that you can’t really replace independently, so you have to replace the unit. In Apple Silicon, it’s an integral part of an assembly, so you can replace the board with one that contains 16GB if you want, but you can’t readily replace some smaller parts that are part of the assembly, just like in vehicles. In fact, if I wanted to, I could even buy an M2 board with whatever RAM spec I wanted for my M1 Mac Mini, and slot it in there… You can buy the assembly, just not integral smaller sub-pieces of that assembly, just like with many vehicle parts…
E. I don’t think Apple is doing wrong here in this matter. Many of us here have shared minor complaints or criticisms in other threads. I don’t think Apple is “incompetent” or “greedy” because they don’t do some of the things I’d like in some areas. And by the same token, I could similarly claim that you just don’t like Apple based on your comments…
F. 8GB is more than enough for many. It shouldn’t be upgradable, because the soldered RAM on SoC provides efficiency and performance advantages that are more appealing to many people than cracking open their computer and changing fragile internal components which poses a risk of damaging their computer… And upgrade pricing is not crazy expensive, it is competitive with many other computers on the market, as I already demonstrated in several posts in this thread…
Last edited:
Let me pose you this counter-scenario. Would you have been okay if Apple's M1 MBA had debuted with 16gb ram and 512gb storage back in 2020, but with the starting price also higher by $400 (to factor in the spec bumps?).
1) I do believe that at the time when the M1 MBA debuted, Apple did genuinely believe that 8gb ram sufficed for its target market. The existence of this thread shows that there are plenty of users who are getting by just fine with 8gb ram. It doesn't mean that they won't see any benefit with more ram out of the box, but they are not exactly suffering for the lack of it either.
If you need more ram, that's where their pro models come in. Apple products have never been cheap, and that's something I have come to make peace with when I decided to embrace their ecosystem in its entirety.
2) I guess I am just not all that bothered by Apple's upgrade pricing. I buy what I need, when I need, and get on with my life.
Yeah, it's not exactly cheap, but it's not like I will be replacing my device every other year either. Say I decide to get the M4 MBA, and go with 32gb ram and 1tb of storage. I think it raises the final price by about 80%? But it's also likely good for the next 6-7 years (or however long it gets software updates), and that's an expense I can get behind.
I am honestly not feeling the whole outrage over this.
Exactly. All great points. 👍🏻. And there are alternatives out there. If people don’t like Apple’s pricing (or insert other practice, product, etc), they don’t have to buy from Apple…
Last edited:
But now we're going in circles. Apple's cost isn't an additional $400. Maybe an additional $40.
They priced and configured it the way because they wanted to. They could've also priced it the same and configured it with higher specs.
I think they were aware that they were stretching that spec. By the time the M3 shipped, it had gotten quite low.
I'm not personally outraged. Overall, the ARM Macs have been good products. Industry-leading in several respects — SoC, trackpad, screen (in the case of the Pro), speakers — and decent in others. Configured a little higher, they're easy to recommend to almost anyone unless you a) play games or b) use a lot of Windows apps.
And they did: 16GB for all!
And to come back. Maybe the m1 air with 8GB was still ok(ish). M3 was really getting silly.
And no, a MBA with 512/16gb should not cost 400 euro extra as base.
According to several in this thread, Apple was just being “greedy” or “stingy” for not choosing to give that spec away for free earlier… And by the same token, my parents were “stingy” or “greedy” for not giving me x toy sooner… Or my job is “greedy” or “stingy” for not giving me a nice watch for my tenure as their employee sooner, because they could have easily eaten the cost sooner. It’s not a good argument…And they did: 16GB for all!
And to come back. Maybe the m1 air with 8GB was still ok(ish). M3 was really getting silly.
And no, a MBA with 512/16gb should not cost 400 euro extra as base.
And now people are looking for other things to nitpick on base spec models like storage spec, rather than just buying the spec they need/want… (Which seems to have essentially been the core problem all along, a few who want nicer specs, but don’t want to buy them for whatever reason…)
And all of the same arguments people made here against 8GB of RAM could be copy pasted for 16GB of RAM. Niche 3D animation workflows don’t run as well on 16GB Macs as 128GB Macs, so make 128GB the base spec, and on we go…
That’s your opinion. But market values can disagree… It all depends on what added value the spec is determined to add to the product, what customers are willing to pay for that added value, and what prices companies are willing to charge for that added value/spec. And many are willing to pay for upgrades, as demonstrated by multiple competing PC lines and brands on the market charging similar or higher upgrade pricing…
Last edited: