8GB RAM in M3 MacBook Pro Proves the Bottleneck in Real-World Tests

[Chuckeee]

After reading this back-and-forth, I’ve come to the conclusion that there perhaps is one thing that I’ve changed my mind on. Apple should offer an ADDITIONAL pre-built M3 MacBook Pro configuration that has at least 16GB of RAM, with an at least 1TB SSR too. BTO is just too intimidating for too many people. I’m not saying it should be cheaper although that would be nice. I’m not saying they should get rid of the 8Gb pre-built either.

Well that’s my 2 cents.

 

[Agincourt]

OP I was responding to was effectively ignoring those things by arguing that by making RAM the most important factor in his calculus. He literally said “no $1600 computer should have 8GB RAM” which ignores all of the other aspects of the computer. What if that $1600 goes towards a really really nice display? RAM isn’t the only metric, and isn’t even necessarily the most important metric for many people when they’re choosing a computer, so to go around like “nobody should have the option to get really nice premium hardware for cheaper by getting a lower RAM configuration device” is just a bit ridiculous…

Ps even if your argument is that it’s supposedly overpriced for the amount of RAM available, completely removing the option doesn’t really help people. Would you be opposed to it if they offered an 8GB RAM MacBook Pro for $1400? If you think the RAM is too little for too much, that’s hardly the same argument as “a lower RAM option shouldn’t exist at all”.

Yes the overall quality of the computers are incredible and should be expected to cost a lot.
However there's a gigantic gulf between removing a cooling fan to save cost verses choosing cheap components for the explicit purpose of price gouging on upgrades. Apple maybe can't realistically sell a '14 pro for $200 less, but they CAN upgrade a $1600 laptop for 8 more GB for ~$20... except that would undercut their ability to charge $200 more for that exact same upgrade.

I think that's what the rest of us are arguing about.

 

[avkills]

Wrong. Y'all need to read: Unified Memory Architecture is different.

You seem to think that unified memory is some sort of new magical thing. Every single Intel chip with a built in GPU uses a unified memory access system; whether it is running under Windows or pre-Apple Silicon. The big difference is that now thanks to the ever shrinking fabrication tech for silicon chips, it is actually now plausible to make a SoC that actually performs well in both areas.

Which is my next point, Apple already knows how to make the OS switch between a built in GPU and a discreet GPU, so why the refusal to allow external GPUs with Apple Silicon?

 

[Kal Madda]

Yes the overall quality of the computers are incredible and should be expected to cost a lot.
However there's a gigantic gulf between removing a cooling fan to save cost verses choosing cheap components for the explicit purpose of price gouging on upgrades. Apple maybe can't realistically sell a '14 pro for $200 less, but they CAN upgrade a $1600 laptop for 8 more GB for ~$20... except that would undercut their ability to charge $200 more for that exact same upgrade.

I think that's what the rest of us are arguing about.

The problem though, is that you’re assuming that it only costs them $20 to manufacture Unified Memory. Unless you have insider information, I don’t think we can be confident that we know exactly how much it costs them to produce. And I’ve heard many credible sources who probably do have a bit more insider information, say that it’s more expensive to produce the Unified Memory Apple is using.

 

[magbarn]

After reading this back-and-forth, I’ve come to the conclusion that there perhaps is one thing that I’ve changed my mind on. Apple should offer an ADDITIONAL pre-built M3 MacBook Pro configuration that has at least 16GB of RAM, with an at least 1TB SSR too. BTO is just too intimidating for too many people. I’m not saying it should be cheaper although that would be nice. I’m not saying they should get rid of the 8Gb pre-built either.

Well that’s my 2 cents.

That would make a huge difference. A 16gb/1TB option without having to do a BTO would be awesome as the resellers frequently give discounts that Apple never does.

 

[magbarn]

The problem though, is that you’re assuming that it only costs them $20 to manufacture Unified Memory. Unless you have insider information, I don’t think we can be confident that we know exactly how much it costs them to produce. And I’ve heard many credible sources who probably do have a bit more insider information, say that it’s more expensive to produce the Unified Memory Apple is using.

Nothing special about unified memory when it comes to the memory modules themselves. What’s special is that Apple solders the bog standard LPDDR5 modules directly onto the chip. You can buy those modules on alibaba/aliexpress and attempt to solder them yourself if you have the specialized equipment to desolder/solder BGA’s. As I mentioned above, Samsung has already submitted to JEDEC a memory module standard that allows swappable LPDDR5 memory modules that Apple uses which is neat as current SODIMMS only allow standard power hungry DDR5.

 

[Kal Madda]

Nothing special about unified memory when it comes to the memory modules themselves. What’s special is that Apple solders the bog standard LPDDR5 modules directly onto the chip. You can buy those modules on alibaba/aliexpress and attempt to solder them yourself if you have the specialized equipment to desolder/solder BGA’s. As I mentioned above, Samsung has already submitted to JEDEC a memory module standard that allows swappable LPDDR5 memory modules that Apple uses which is neat as current SODIMMS only allow standard power hungry DDR5.

I just read an interesting article that was able to analyze the costs of all the components, and it looks like Apple’s only making $300 some-odd on the MacBook Air. The article also explained that this is why most of the actual profit Apple is able to get from the MacBooks is in the upgrades. You may not like the system, but the base spec seems to basically be Apple’s loss-leader, and the upgrades are where they actually start making more profit.

 

[ric22]

The problem though, is that you’re assuming that it only costs them $20 to manufacture Unified Memory. Unless you have insider information, I don’t think we can be confident that we know exactly how much it costs them to produce. And I’ve heard many credible sources who probably do have a bit more insider information, say that it’s more expensive to produce the Unified Memory Apple is using.

So $25 instead of $20? 🤔

 

[theorist9]

And yes you read that right. The M3 Pro configuration starts with 18GB of RAM. Everyone is trying to sort out why.

3 channels. Each with 6 GB memory

I know this is an M3 thread, but in case anyone's wondering about the correspondingly unusual memory configs on the base and high-end M3 Max:

They're probably using three physical memory modules on the base Max (giving a bandwidth of 300 GB/s), and four on the high-end one (400 GB/s), in combination with module sizes of 12 GB, 16 GB, and 32 GB:

Base Max (10P/4E CPU, 30 GPU): {36 GB, 96 GB}/(3 modules) = {12 GB/module, 32 GB/module}
High Max (12P/4E CPU, 40 GPU): {48 GB, 64 GB, 128GB}/ (4 modules) = {12 GB/module, 16 GB/module, 32 GB/module}

It seems they decided to forgo the 3 modules x 16 GB/module = 48 GB SKU for the base Max.

 

[ric22]

I just read an interesting article that was able to analyze the costs of all the components, and it looks like Apple’s only making $300 some-odd on the MacBook Air. The article also explained that this is why most of the actual profit Apple is able to get from the MacBooks is in the upgrades. You may not like the system, but the base spec seems to basically be Apple’s loss-leader, and the upgrades are where they actually start making more profit.

It's hard to use loss-leading to describe only making ~$375 on a base MacBook Air or ~$620 on a base MacBook Pro...

 

[theorist9]

I just read an interesting article that was able to analyze the costs of all the components, and it looks like Apple’s only making $300 some-odd on the MacBook Air. The article also explained that this is why most of the actual profit Apple is able to get from the MacBooks is in the upgrades. You may not like the system, but the base spec seems to basically be Apple’s loss-leader, and the upgrades are where they actually start making more profit.

Yeah, that been known in general for some time, but it's interesting to hear the specific BOM's. Could you link the source article?

 

[magbarn]

I know this is an M3 thread, but in case anyone's wondering about the correspondingly unusual memory configs on the base and high-end M3 Max:

They're probably using three physical memory modules on the base Max (giving a bandwidth of 300 GB/s), and four on the high-end one (400 GB/s), in combination with module sizes of 12 GB, 16 GB, and 32 GB:

Base Max: {36 GB, 96 GB}/(3 modules) = {12 GB/module, 32 GB/module}
High Max: {48 GB, 64 GB, 128GB}/ (4 modules) = {12 GB/module, 16 GB/module, 32 GB/module}

It seems they decided to forgo the 3 modules x 16 GB/module = 48 GB SKU for the base Max.

That sounds about right. I miss barefeats (sadly the site owner passed away a couple of years ago) who used to compare various Mac configurations against each other. Likely Apple’s engineers optimized the bandwidth/modules to core ratios and there hopefully isn’t major real world hit to having different bandwidths on each memory configuration.

 

[theorist9]

That sounds about right. I miss barefeats (sadly the site owner passed away a couple of years ago) who used to compare various Mac configurations against each other. Likely Apple’s engineers optimized the bandwidth/modules to core ratios and there hopefully isn’t major real world hit to having different bandwidths on each memory configuration.

Sorry to hear about barefeats. And yeah, a poster on another site noted the high-end Max has more GPU/CPU cores to feed, and that it's the GPU cores, especially, that need the bandwidth, so 400 GB/s for 40G/12P/4E could be equivalent to 300 GB/s for 30G/12P/4E.

 

[Kal Madda]

@theorist9

Is Apple Fleecing you?

Cost break-down of the MacBook Air and Pro!

medium.com

 

[snak-atak]

No you wouldn't. It doesn't cost Apple $200 to install 8 GB more, they charge you significantly more. Most laptop 32 GB RAM modules cost significantly less than $200 and can be installed down the road.

What's more is that these computers have a vastly shorter useful life than had you gotten 16 GB. You're measuring how good these are by today's standards, except that they're not upgradable! What happens if the next Apple OS demands 8+ GB of RAM? Suddenly all the baseline configuration are effectively obsolete.

Then what? You'll need to replace your otherwise perfectly good computers that much sooner, feeding Apple's endless greed. And in the end the only one that wins is Apple either for forcing users to future proof their computers for a premium or replace the baseline that much sooner.

Thanks for your concern for me, but the machines I buy are my business and I’m perfectly fine with my choices.

 

[ric22]

@theorist9

Is Apple Fleecing you?

Cost break-down of the MacBook Air and Pro!

medium.com

"Total Cost​

When all costs are added up this is the final price for the 3 machines.

M1 13-inch MacBook Air — $583 + $100 R&D = $683​

M1 Pro 14-inch MacBook Pro — $986 + $170 R&D = $1156​

M1 Max 16-inch MacBook Pro — $1272 + $220 R&D = $1492"​

Hmmmm, so a MacBook Pro M1 14" had a build cost of $986 but sold in Europe for over $2600... thanks Apple! Even bigger margin on the 16"

 

[ksj1]

@theorist9

Is Apple Fleecing you?

Cost break-down of the MacBook Air and Pro!

medium.com

Interesting article. Seems to leave some costs out though, like shipping, retail store expenses, regulatory expenses, etc.

Edit - It also doesn't cover the labor to build the product, just the cost of the parts.

 

[bobcomer]

I just read an interesting article that was able to analyze the costs of all the components, and it looks like Apple’s only making $300 some-odd on the MacBook Air. The article also explained that this is why most of the actual profit Apple is able to get from the MacBooks is in the upgrades. You may not like the system, but the base spec seems to basically be Apple’s loss-leader, and the upgrades are where they actually start making more profit.

$300 margin on MBA isn't a loss leader, it's still a profit, and a sizable one at that. Of course they make more profit at upgrades with their pricing!!

 

[Radeon85]

Well done Apple you bottlenecked the absolute crap out of it, well that was predictable when using a puny 8GB RAM in 2023, that amount I wouldn't even put into a word processing PC these days.

16GB Should have been the absolute bare minimum with 32GB on the other one. If Apple really has courage they would pull that 8GB model from the shelves ASAP.

 

[ric22]

Interesting article. Seems to leave some costs out though, like shipping, retail store expenses, regulatory expenses, etc.

They do factor in very high levels of R&D, though, which balances it out a bit.

 

[ksj1]

They do factor in very high levels of R&D, though, which balances it out a bit.

Nonsense.

I'll edit this. That simply is not how accounting is done. And IMO that R&D estimate is probably low.

 

[boak]

Apple is not going to sell you something at cost, especially not a memory upgrade. Those who need higher specs are generally less sensitive to price, which is why they can sell upgrades at very high margins. Just basic economics at work here.

 

[tunne]

While 8GB is plenty for most users, Apple should at least give us the ability to download more memory if required.

 

[Kal Madda]

Interesting article. Seems to leave some costs out though, like shipping, retail store expenses, regulatory expenses, etc.

Edit - It also doesn't cover the labor to build the product, just the cost of the parts.

Exactly, and OF COURSE, the pitchfork bearers will use this to be like “Apple makes thaaat much!!!” 🙄

 

[Kal Madda]

$300 margin on MBA isn't a loss leader, it's still a profit, and a sizable one at that. Of course they make more profit at upgrades with their pricing!!

And that doesn’t factor in things such as labor costs, retail costs, etc. Also, without the price tier system, Apple would likely have to raise the base starting price of it’s products in order to make them profitable enough, so people on the low end would have to pay more. The way Apple does it is better for customers and consumers because they can buy at the low end spec and get a really great deal considering the value and components of the device, while the upgrades make the product more profitable and keep those really low base prices sustainable.