All of which can run just fine on an 8GB RAM Mac, stop it with the “8GB = 1 app at a time” fallacy. It just doesn’t hold up.
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
You're ignoring the $1300 i7 model which makes all of that moot.
By that logic, you’re ignoring the M3 Pro chip option. We’re talking about the price that Microsoft charges for a RAM upgrade on their i5 model. It is there it does exist, so let’s not pretend that Microsoft isn’t asking for $400 for the same RAM upgrade we’re criticizing from Apple, when there’s clear photographic evidence that they definitely are. And this is a trend that carries up along upgrades, on the i7 they ask $730 for an upgrade from 16GB to 32GB, something that for the Mac only costs $400. Their prices are clearly higher, so let’s not pretend they’re not.
I didn't bring up the "one app at a time" thing, so I'm not going to defend it.
If we substitute "1 app at a time" with "the typical assortment of enterprise apps", then I'd still say 8 GiB is fine, but it isn't good.
Ya know a value meal starts out at Medium ( 16GB ) not small ( 8GB ) no one’s asking for a base value meal to have large fries ( 32GB )
Your argument is pedantic.
If you’re value meal started at $1,499 it better come with at least medium fries…..
Yea, I really don't think people would be complaining if Apple increased the base RAM to 16GB. People weren't complaining when the $2000 models started out at 16GB last year. If people didn't complain about those, they wouldn't start complaining about the $1599 model having "only" 16GB either.
You could still find outliers (you could find an example somewhere on Twitter of somebody crazy enough to complain), but that's just not representative of the market at large.
Heck, I'd expect medium white truffle and extra caviar...
Well... it seems that Microsoft will frequently and randomly add discounts to certain configurations which makes this comparison difficult. Yesterday I could spend $300 to upgrade the base model with better RAM, SSD and processor and now that same upgrade cost $600. Today there remains the same discount with that i7 $730 RAM upgrade I saw before. But regardless, this is a 2 lbs. tablet... squeezing such specs into a small form factor is a complement to Microsoft, and the only reason nobody is complaining about it is because its niche device that's much less popular than a Macbook Pro. So some Microsoft Surface devices might sometimes have more expensive RAM upgrades than Apple, and nobody's buying them because there's almost always better deals and configurations available. If you search around in such a big and varied market you can always find exceptions to prove a point.
Attachments
Last edited:
I dunno man, I'm starting to question that. Are you really sure that you're not one? Have you checked recently? There must be a reason DaVinci Resolve and FCP exports are the most important benchmarks in the world!
I understand the reason that youtube creators believe that their workflow is the most obvious use case for everyone, but that also makes them terrible tech journalists / reviewers. If you don't edit video for a living or play games, there's almost no meaningful benchmark in the enthusiast community that caters to you.
I might actually have a solution that satisfies both sides here.
Apple presents its base MBP to a price of $1799 with 16 GB RAM with the option of downgrading to 8 GB to save $200. Now both sides are open with the default being the higher end figure.
Back in 2005 when Apple upgraded its iBook G4 with a superdrive they allowed me to downgrade to a combo drive and save $90, which I did happily because that was a feature I didn't need.
I wonder if this is more about appearance than actual specs and prices. I would say the base 14 MBP (save the RAM and storage) is a premium computer in terms of its display and general features shared by the ~$7000 fully upgraded version. So one can argue you're buying a computer with great keyboard, display, battery, and Apple logo. At this point you can either pursue the vastly cheaper low-end option with one fan or the higher end version.
When it comes to storage there are options such as network sharing and external storage, but RAM is baked in and therefore you should future proof it. So even if 8 GB is more than enough for most people today, can the same likely be said five years later? I for one don't replace my computers, I plan to keep them for a decade or however long they still work. By setting the base at 8 GB this encourages early disposal and bad environmental example.
Apple presents its base MBP to a price of $1799 with 16 GB RAM with the option of downgrading to 8 GB to save $200. Now both sides are open with the default being the higher end figure.
Back in 2005 when Apple upgraded its iBook G4 with a superdrive they allowed me to downgrade to a combo drive and save $90, which I did happily because that was a feature I didn't need.
I wonder if this is more about appearance than actual specs and prices. I would say the base 14 MBP (save the RAM and storage) is a premium computer in terms of its display and general features shared by the ~$7000 fully upgraded version. So one can argue you're buying a computer with great keyboard, display, battery, and Apple logo. At this point you can either pursue the vastly cheaper low-end option with one fan or the higher end version.
When it comes to storage there are options such as network sharing and external storage, but RAM is baked in and therefore you should future proof it. So even if 8 GB is more than enough for most people today, can the same likely be said five years later? I for one don't replace my computers, I plan to keep them for a decade or however long they still work. By setting the base at 8 GB this encourages early disposal and bad environmental example.
No, but they have to pay for Intel chips. Intel factor the R&D into their pricing.
Oh no, I was clarifying and reiterating my point. If they had started this thing at $1799, nobody would bat an eye about it. And again, personally, I think it's good that they are at least offering the choice.
Do I think someone should buy it? No, I don't I think someone should get a MacBook Air and save their money. But I'm glad it exists for the person who wants something like this.
Also, the fact of the matter is that most people don't need 16 GB of RAM on Apple silicon. 8GB is totally fine for basic to intermediate tasks. I know, but because I do basic to intermediate tasks on an M1 MacBook Air. I do Lightroom edits and exports. I do light video editing. I use Google Sheets, Docs, Netflix, and YouTube. And it runs great.
Would some of that be faster if I had 16 GB of ram? Yeah, but it's still workable with 8 on a 3-year-old chip.
Last edited:
I've noticed that as well. It's nice to see how these systems perform when being hammered, but most people don't do these workflows.
It's why I like to see amateur reviews of these things. Usually they talk about their actual real-life workflows that they do on a daily basis, so it's nice to see how the systems perform for everyday people.
And Apple retailers frequently add discounts to Macs, so I guess it’s a hard comparison to make as well. But the bottom line is, if we look at the actual non-discounted prices for the two, Microsoft’s prices are higher.
As to the distinction of it being a tablet, that’s, again, a point in my favor. There’s no way that the added value of 16GB of RAM on a tablet (which will overheat when trying to perform the same tasks and will have far less battery runtime), is double the value of 16GB of RAM on a Pro laptop that can easily make better use of those 16GB of RAM. And in this case, we actually know for certain that the Surface Pro is just using standard RAM chips. The footprint of a 16GB RAM chip isn’t different from an 8GB one, so arguing that “squeezing those specs into a small form factor is a complement for Microsoft”, doesn’t make much sense, as there’s not really any more “squeezing” involved in sticking a 16GB wafer in instead of an 8GB. You’re correct that it’s a somewhat niche product, but so is the MacBook Pro. The MacBook Air is far more popular, the MacBook Pro is a higher-end device. Most top-of-the-line premium devices are a bit niche. And I saw similarly higher or equal RAM upgrade pricing with Microsoft’s Surface Studio Laptop as well, not double, but at least equal, and generally higher.
At the end of the day, you could accept that Microsoft does, in fact, charge more for RAM upgrades, and at the same time argue that Apple is charging too much as well. But pretending Microsoft isn’t charging more really isn’t an option, the hard evidence shows Microsoft is, in fact, charging more, it’s not a very disputable case. Personally, I think the M3 MacBook Pro is a great value even with a $200 upgrade, so I don’t really have any problem with their RAM pricing tier. Others disagree, and I respect that, but I do think it’s fair to point out that some are asking an even higher price for the same thing, and pointing out that other competitors charge a similar price as well.
I recently went onto Apple's site and configured a potential 15 inch air with specs as I think are minimally acceptable to a pro user and noticed that it's really only $100 USD less than the 14 pro after upgrading to 16 GB.
I actually find myself realizing now that the 14 is a great value compared to the 15 for only a $100 difference in models. A pro with 16 GB without price increase would effectively neuter sales for the 15 Air.
So all things considered... this low-end pro may actually be a greater value than originally thought.
I actually find myself realizing now that the 14 is a great value compared to the 15 for only a $100 difference in models. A pro with 16 GB without price increase would effectively neuter sales for the 15 Air.
So all things considered... this low-end pro may actually be a greater value than originally thought.
Which in turn means that you'll never be able to take advantage of good sales on it.
Well, a 15 Air gets you
- a larger (but lower-res) display
- fanless
- 26% thinner
The 14 Pro (for just $100 more) gets you
- M3 instead of M2
- 22% more battery life; in practice, I suspect it's actually even better
- a much nicer display: 20% brighter at SDR, 100-220% brighter at HDR, ProMotion (both lower and higher refresh rates)
- HDMI
- SD
So some people might still prefer the Air, even if you configure everything the same. Both are great laptops, with the one caveat that neither offers support for a second external display (speaking of corporate use…).
No 1600 dollar laptop with 8 GB RAM is a great value compared to anything
It seems the base 8GB is being thrashed online. The consensus is a pro device having 8GB in 2023 is upsetting to say the least.
More so a $1600 device having 8GB but yeah. There is a minority of people that think 8GB is enough.