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

[montuori]

they don't have to think. just check activity monitor and see how much swaps are happening. it ain't exactly rocket science.

Well sort of. Swap can be used well or it can thrash. A well specified system (in cost/value terms) will use some swap but will have enough memory to keep active processes in RAM. So sure, swap may be in use (and you're absolutely correct that you can just look that up in Activity Monitor) but it's a little more work to understand *how* the swap is being used or mis-used.

For my non-mission critical hardware (like my laptop) I want to be utilizing as much of the RAM and SSD as possible; headroom is merely wasted resources (i.e., money). If MacOS is able to shuttle bits off of the SSD fast enough that I don't notice and can pretend that's RAM, well great. (MTTF on the SSDs isn't soon enough to give that any thought.)

This isn't to say that more memory isn't useful with particular workloads. I'm not telling anyone what *they* need.

 

[DougiePhresh]

With all hardware the same this just proves they under-equipped the base model, crippling its ability to even make use of the same hardware as 16GB model would handle just fine. It would be like buying a base model car that had a governor on it, limiting it to 50 MPH and the next model up has no such governor and can hit the actual top speed the car and engine are capable of.

What? What do you mean “with all the hardware the same?” The RAM is part of the hardware - so you inherently will never have an 8GB and 16GB machine with the same hardware … unless Apple is putting 16GB chips in the 8GB machines and then software-limiting them to only using 8GB?

Your analogy is wrong - the 8GB configuration is like buying the base model trim package car equipped with the 1.8L three cylinder engine versus paying more and getting the 128GB is like top-tier trim level with the 6.5L V12. Both cars work, and both are perfectly fine … maybe not for you, but for someone. Michael Schumacher will probably need a V12, my grandma probably doesn’t need a car at all - but she is going to buy three cylinder anyway.

If you want more RAM, spec your MacBook with more RAM - it’s not hard. Idk why you care how much RAM my computer has?

 

[Agincourt]

It's because RAM and storage are amongst the cheapest components added to the computer. Had Apple decided to allow RAM modules to be installed and SSD's, one could very easily upgrade a MacBook Pro to 32 GB RAM and 1 TB storage for only $200 if you bought and installed them yourself.

Now when it comes to processor performance and specs, Apple would have every right to demand what they want because those ARE expensive components and Apple is allowed to price their own hardware as they want. Unfortunately by designing user accessibility out of literally all their computers, they can effectively create artificial chokepoints and turn what once were cheap components into extreme price gouging.

Now if you want such RAM and storage you have to pay $800+ over the base models... and the MB Air only gets you 24GB RAM!

 

[ksj1]

Unfortunately by designing user accessibility out of literally all their computers, they can effectively create artificial chokepoints and turn what once were cheap components into extreme price gouging.

More likely that they are subsidizing the cost of the base SKU with the upgrade pricing.

I don't begrudge Apple their profits since they bring great products to the market. That engineering takes time and money. The 2021 M1 series was a several year long process.

Edit - I also don't care if I can't upgrade the whatever. I'm a dev, I get lots of memory in the first place because I know I need it. If my requirements go up it usually means my income is going up and I can write off the depreciation anyway. I would expect 'Professionals' getting a MBP to be able to figure out their own needs and get what is appropriate for their needs, whether that is a base or not.

 

[tamcro3]

8GB of RAM is the same base ram of a base Macbook 13 Retina in 2012... 11 years. Ridiculous

 

[Kal Madda]

8GB of RAM is the same base ram of a base Macbook 13 Retina in 2012... 11 years. Ridiculous

And Apple’s still using anodized aluminum bodies for their laptops, same as in 2012… 11 years. Ridiculous…

Or, maybe just because something has been around for 11 years, doesn’t mean anything about whether it’s good or not. Your argument isn’t a good one, I could argue a lot of other things that make no sense with the same logic. Just because 8GB of RAM has been an option since 2012 doesn’t make it a bad option. Plenty of people are perfectly fine with 8GB of RAM, and some like you who want more can just buy more. People who find 8GB of RAM to be adequate for their needs should be able to configure it with 8GB of RAM, that way they can save some money.

 

[Apple_Robert]

8GB of RAM is the same base ram of a base Macbook 13 Retina in 2012... 11 years. Ridiculous

How dare so many keep using their base model Mac for the same kind of things they did in 2012 like internet browsing, email, viewing video, and creating documents etc.

What is ridiculous is so many here trying to dictate how much RAM other people should be able to buy and use on a computer they purchased.

 

[Kal Madda]

How dare so many keep using their base model Mac for the same kind of things they did in 2012 like internet browsing, email, viewing video, and creating documents etc.

What is ridiculous is so many here trying to dictate how much RAM other people should be able to buy and use on a computer they purchased.

Exactly, the silly thing is that anyone who wants 16GB of RAM can get it. But it’s like they have some form of superiority complex or something where they think 8GB of RAM shouldn’t be an option for those of us who are happy with it.

 

[chetzar]

Exactly, the silly thing is that anyone who wants 16GB of RAM can get it. But it’s like they have some form of superiority complex or something where they think 8GB of RAM shouldn’t be an option for those of us who are happy with it.

No, it's really that as simple as a "Pro" machine should not start with 8GB of RAM. The Air having a base of 8GB is much more justifiable - but a device that is marketed so heavily to "Professionals" having 8GB and starting at $1600? Kinda laughable.

Again, I've opened spreadsheets that require more than 8GB of RAM. Even most of Corporate America realized 8GB is not enough (like 6 years ago) and I'd pose that most of those folks don't touch Adobe software or any other creative suite. They are working in Office, Outlook, Edge/Chrome, etc..

 

[Agincourt]

And Apple’s still using anodized aluminum bodies for their laptops, same as in 2012… 11 years. Ridiculous…

Or, maybe just because something has been around for 11 years, doesn’t mean anything about whether it’s good or not. Your argument isn’t a good one, I could argue a lot of other things that make no sense with the same logic. Just because 8GB of RAM has been an option since 2012 doesn’t make it a bad option. Plenty of people are perfectly fine with 8GB of RAM, and some like you who want more can just buy more. People who find 8GB of RAM to be adequate for their needs should be able to configure it with 8GB of RAM, that way they can save some money.

I don't know about the rest of you but when I pay a premium for a product, I don't want 'good enough.'

Seriously you're arguing that structural materials are comparable to tech?

8 GB RAM wasn't an option but the baseline about 10 years ago. 10 years before that the baseline was 1 GB. 10 years before that it was 256 MB. I can't help noticing a pattern with Apple that broke starting since they designed non upgradable RAM with the first retina MBP.

Now this trend hasn't kept pace with everyone but in general Apple's competitors have advanced the line while Apple insists to make their baseline a premium option instead of a given.

 

[Kal Madda]

No, it's really that as simple as a "Pro" machine should not start with 8GB of RAM. The Air having a base of 8GB is much more justifiable - but a device that is marketed so heavily to "Professionals" having 8GB and starting at $1600? Kinda laughable.

Again, I've opened spreadsheets that require more than 8GB of RAM. Even most of Corporate America realized 8GB is not enough (like 6 years ago) and I'd pose that most of those folks don't touch Adobe software or any other creative suite. They are working in Office, Outlook, Edge/Chrome, etc..

Not all (or necessarily even most) professionals use Adobe apps. 8GB of RAM is perfectly fine for Office, Outlook, Safari/Edge/Chrome, Slack, etc. And just saying “if you want 8GB of RAM, you can just get an Air” isn’t a great argument. The Pro has plenty of hardware advantages that make it more appealing for some, so it’s nice that we have an option that’s less expensive, yet still gives us the nice hardware. The Pro has more ports, longer battery runtime, better display, better sound system. I’m sure that some non-pros would still like to be able to buy a Pro model, that way they can enjoy the better screen and sound system. I don’t see how it hurts anyone to have a cheaper option with less RAM for those who don’t need as much RAM.

 

[Kal Madda]

I don't know about the rest of you but when I pay a premium for a product, I don't want 'good enough.'

Seriously you're arguing that structural materials are comparable to tech?

8 GB RAM wasn't an option but the baseline about 10 years ago. 10 years before that the baseline was 1 GB. 10 years before that it was 256 MB. I can't help noticing a pattern with Apple that broke starting since they designed non upgradable RAM with the first retina MBP.

Now this trend hasn't kept pace with everyone but in general Apple's competitors have advanced the line while Apple insists to make their baseline a premium option instead of a given.

Th truth of the matter is that not everyone needs 16GB of RAM, the 8GB models sell quite well for the MacBook Air, so I don’t see why someone can’t pay a “premium” for a premium display, sound system, battery runtime, etc. RAM isn’t the top consideration for everyone when they’re picking their computer, many people know they will be fine with 8GB of RAM, and so what they’re looking at is other things like display quality and sound system. It doesn’t hurt you for Apple to offer a cheaper 8GB RAM option for people who don’t need 16GB. And the beauty of it is that nobodies stopping you from getting the amount of RAM you want. You’re wanting to take away the option from those who like 8GB configurations to be able to get them.

 

[aevan]

You can stream true HDR video I suppose on the machine, but forget about creating it with a paltry 8GB of RAM.

Erm, HDR video is just metadata, it’s no more demanding than SDR video. In fact, you can definitely create HDR videos with 8Gb RAM, even at 4K. I agree that computer should come with 16Gb, but let’s not exaggerate things.

Also, a lot of people can appreciate the HDR display just to view home videos and photos.

 

[Kal Madda]

And another point not being talked about here is that the M3 supports 3 RAM options: 8GB, 16GB, and 24GB. This is the same chip that will be used in the next MacBook Air, so it would be really weird and convoluted to not offer all available RAM configuration options for the M3 in a product just because a few people think “Pro” equals “next big video game creator”… 🙄. This M3 configuration is a bridge option for those who want the better hardware of the Pro models, but don’t need the M3 Pro chip with a base of 18GB of RAM. The M3 MacBook Pro is a bridge between the Air and the Pro. Basically, what Apple has done here is put a “consumer chip” (the chip they use in their consumer lineup) into a MacBook Pro frame, that way people can get it cheaper with all the hardware improvements of the Pro, but a lower cost of entry. Again, an in-between option for both “consumers” who want that display and sound system, but don’t want or need to pay for the high end chips and extra RAM, and for professionals who have average workflows that don’t require lots of RAM, like Office, Slack, Web browsers, etc.

 

[Agincourt]

I don’t see how it hurts anyone to have a cheaper option with less RAM for those who don’t need as much RAM.

I don't think that's our argument at all. When you upgrade from 8 GB to 24GB you must pay an extra $400 premium. Our complaints aren't that the options aren't there... it's that they cost an enormous premium. RAM and Storage doesn't cost Apple anywhere near that much to add to manufacturing, but they absolutely gouge customers who need just a little more than base model. Our wants aren't for Apple to give stuff away for free, but to simply set its base specs to something reasonable and stop treating 'good enough' as if it's a premium item.

This would however mean they can't gouge their customers so easily and lose a lot of profit... and this they cannot do!

 

[chetzar]

Not all (or necessarily even most) professionals use Adobe apps. 8GB of RAM is perfectly fine for Office, Outlook, Safari/Edge/Chrome, Slack, etc. And just saying “if you want 8GB of RAM, you can just get an Air” isn’t a great argument. The Pro has plenty of hardware advantages that make it more appealing for some, so it’s nice that we have an option that’s less expensive, yet still gives us the nice hardware. The Pro has more ports, longer battery runtime, better display, better sound system. I’m sure that some non-pros would still like to be able to buy a Pro model, that way they can enjoy the better screen and sound system. I don’t see how it hurts anyone to have a cheaper option with less RAM for those who don’t need as much RAM.

By definition my computer is for "Professional use".
With Outlook, Teams, Edge, and the misc. required background stuff running (enterprises/corporations rarely leave a computer, PC or Mac, "stock" and usually have additional background tasks running, for a variety of reasons), I am sitting at 10GB of memory usage.
So Apple's default "Pro" configuration with 8GB would be insufficient for even basic office use.

Tell me again how 8GB is sufficient for a "Pro" machine?

 

[Kal Madda]

I don't think that's our argument at all. When you upgrade from 8 GB to 24GB you must pay an extra $400 premium. Our complaints aren't that the options aren't there... it's that they cost an enormous premium. RAM and Storage doesn't cost Apple anywhere near that much to add to manufacturing, but they absolutely gouge customers who need just a little more than base model. Our wants aren't for Apple to give stuff away for free, but to simply set its base specs to something reasonable and stop treating 'good enough' as if it's a premium item.

This would however mean they can't gouge their customers so easily and lose a lot of profit... and this they cannot do!

You think it’s gouging, I disagree. It only costs $200 to upgrade from 8GB to 16GB of RAM, and the 16GB configuration is still cheaper than the old base configuration with the M2 Pro chip.

And whether or not Apple charges too much for RAM upgrades is an entirely different debate. You could keep an 8GB RAM base configuration and reduce the cost of RAM upgrades. If you’re upset with the cost of RAM upgrades, that doesn’t necessarily equal “remove the current base configuration many people like”, you could just advocate for reducing the cost of RAM upgrades. But this whole debate is full of people not just saying “keep the 8GB RAM option, but reduce the cost to upgrade from there”, instead, people are saying “an 8GB RAM configuration shouldn’t exist, they should make 16GB of RAM the minimum configuration”, which again, is a completely separate argument. And as reasons for why the 8GB option should be removed, many people here are saying “because no-one can use it”, or “no pros can use it”. Many actually can, and that’s why the 8GB configurations sell as well as they do.

 

[Agincourt]

Many actually can, and that’s why the 8GB configurations sell as well as they do.

I would be most interested in seeing how many customers opt for the base configuration. Please give me your link.

 

[Kal Madda]

By definition my computer is for "Professional use".
With Outlook, Teams, Edge, and the misc. required background stuff running (enterprises/corporations rarely leave a computer, PC or Mac, "stock" and usually have additional background tasks running, for a variety of reasons), I am sitting at 10GB of memory usage.
So Apple's default "Pro" configuration with 8GB would be insufficient for even basic office use.

Tell me again how 8GB is sufficient for a "Pro" machine?

The reason it’s currently using 10GB of RAM is because macOS tends to use more when more is available. I’ve used 8GB RAM models to do similar stuff, and never had a problem with RAM pressure. The system won’t use as much in the background when you have less RAM, this is something I’ve observed with my own Macs, and something a friend of mine who has both RAM configurations has observed as well.

 

[Kal Madda]

I would be most interested in seeing how many customers opt for the base configuration. Please give me your link.

You seriously believe they would still be making it if it wasn’t popular enough? Disproportionately, pretty much all of my friends who have bought Apple Silicon Macs have bought base models with 8GB of RAM. And I’ve seen articles before citing that the base configurations are the most popular. I think it’s a rather big assumption to assume that very few people go with the 8GB RAM base configurations, but they still sell them anyway. If 16GB were the best selling, I’d also expect to see more 16GB configurations in the Open Box, refurbished, and new categories, but instead, I find more of the base configurations. Everything points to them being popular enough for Apple to keep around, you have to do a lot more gymnastics to assume that they’re not popular.

 

[pdoherty]

I’m going to contest that a little bit. Sure, Apple’s RAM prices may be higher than some PC manufacturers, but I wouldn’t say all. Take as a case in point the Microsoft Surface Pro 9 with the i5. Looking at its configurations, they charge $400 to upgrade from 8GB RAM to 16GB RAM. That’s double what Apple charges. And in case you’re wondering, no, they don’t upgrade the CPU as well or anything, that is just for the RAM, you can see for yourself.

In the end though, I do agree with you that it should be more of a discussion about value. Even if we were to assume that Apple charges more than everyone else for RAM upgrades, that calculus fails to factor in the value added by the way Apple uses that RAM. With Unified Memory, performance is significantly higher, and PC manufacturers aren’t really offering Unified Memory, they’re offering standard RAM with bus connections and everything that goes with that, that reduces performance comparatively. I think there’s greater value to that system, allowing the computer to perform faster, and do things the other PCs with standard RAM don’t do as well. If people don’t think the value of that upgrade is worth $200, then no one is forcing them to buy it, if their workflow works fine with 8GB of RAM, then they can choose to stay on the cheaper base option, and if it doesn’t, then they can choose to buy from another seller. Every product has pluses and minuses to it, and I think to many people act like it’s a situation where Apple’s forcing them to buy this thing, and it isn’t good enough. If you don’t see a high enough value proposition in a product, then you probably shouldn’t buy it (and probably also shouldn’t go around trolling forums for that product, just like I don’t go around all the Windows forums trashing it all the time). And to clarify, I’m not saying there’s no place for good-faith complaints about a product that you mostly like, I’m talking about people that deal in hyperbole to an extent it would seem they aren’t really happy with the product at all.

It doesn't help your case that, on the same screenshot, they're offering the upgrade to 32GB for FREE.

 

[Agincourt]

Your analogy is wrong - the 8GB configuration is like buying the base model trim package car equipped with the 1.8L three cylinder engine versus paying more and getting the 128GB is like top-tier trim level with the 6.5L V12. Both cars work, and both are perfectly fine … maybe not for you, but for someone. Michael Schumacher will probably need a V12, my grandma probably doesn’t need a car at all - but she is going to buy three cylinder anyway.

I would disagree on this analogy. I would describe it more like a supercar which has all the performance and handling of a Ferrari up to speeds of 60 mph. If you want to increase the top speed you must equip special tires which cost $1k each so that you may reach 80 mph. $2k each to reach speeds of 100 mph. and so on. Obviously some people can get by at only 60 mph and have all that raw power to enjoy speeds up to 60 mph, but ultimately have to spend big on an artificial bottleneck created specifically to corner the market on that car.

I still am using my intel MacBook Pro and it's akin to my Mazda 3 which isn't a performance car but can at least reach sensible speeds of over 70 mph. I'm presently using ~11 GB RAM and I'm not running anything significant right now. Maybe ten tabs with iTunes open. I don't need a speed demon, but if I got 8 GB RAM I'd be running out the life of the storage right now. And I'm not even running parallels right now!

 

[Kal Madda]

It doesn't help your case that, on the same screenshot, they're offering the upgrade to 32GB for FREE.

View attachment 2312107

Already explained that in another post, the 32GB option is an artifact from switching between the i7 and i5. I selected the i7 first, selected the 32GB option to figure out how much that upgrade costed, and then switched to the i5. The 32GB option remained, and said $0 because it isn’t an option for the i5.

And btw, on the i7 configuration, it costs $730 to upgrade from 16GB of RAM to 32GB. Still almost double what Apple charges for that upgrade, which is $400.

 

[Kal Madda]

I would disagree on this analogy. I would describe it more like a supercar which has all the performance and handling of a Ferrari up to speeds of 60 mph. If you want to increase the top speed you must equip special tires which cost $1k each so that you may reach 80 mph. $2k each to reach speeds of 100 mph. and so on. Obviously some people can get by at only 60 mph and have all that raw power to enjoy speeds up to 60 mph, but ultimately have to spend big on an artificial bottleneck created specifically to corner the market on that car.

I still am using my intel MacBook Pro and it's akin to my Mazda 3 which isn't a performance car but can at least reach sensible speeds of over 70 mph. I'm presently using ~11 GB RAM and I'm not running anything significant right now. Maybe ten tabs with iTunes open. I don't need a speed demon, but if I got 8 GB RAM I'd be running out the life of the storage right now. And I'm not even running parallels right now!

The M1 Macs are more efficient in the way they use RAM. They’ve borrowed technology from the iPhone and iPad, both of which haven’t come with 8GB of RAM until more recently, and so are able to handle some fairly heavy stuff with less RAM. Plenty of us who have actually used 8GB M-series Macs have experienced this first hand, I honestly don’t think you should be all that worried about it if you’re currently using 11GB of RAM on an Intel MacBook. Btw, I didn’t know you could set up an Intel MacBook with 11GB I would have thought 12 would make more sense because you could use an 8GB card and a 4GB card. I still have a Mid 2012 MacBook Pro that I upgraded to an SSD. I used it with just the SSD upgrade and 8GB of RAM for at least a year, and I was able to use Affinity Photo and Designer at the same time, with lots of large files open at once, plus other apps like Chrome, Edge, Safari, Office, etc. They all run just fine, and that was with an old Intel chip, people claiming you can’t run multiple apps at once on an 8GB RAM M-Series Mac have likely never used an M-Series Mac with 8GB of RAM. I eventually upgraded my old MacBook Pro with 16GB of RAM, and it honestly didn’t make that big of a difference. And I’ve tested an 8GB RAM M1 configuration, and it beat my 2012 MacBook Pro with 16GB RAM, though, like I said, it is an older MacBook. I think plenty of people are fine with 8GB of RAM, and those who aren’t can just get one that has more. 🤷🏼‍♂️

 

[pdoherty]

What? What do you mean “with all the hardware the same?” The RAM is part of the hardware - so you inherently will never have an 8GB and 16GB machine with the same hardware … unless Apple is putting 16GB chips in the 8GB machines and then software-limiting them to only using 8GB?

Your analogy is wrong - the 8GB configuration is like buying the base model trim package car equipped with the 1.8L three cylinder engine versus paying more and getting the 128GB is like top-tier trim level with the 6.5L V12. Both cars work, and both are perfectly fine … maybe not for you, but for someone. Michael Schumacher will probably need a V12, my grandma probably doesn’t need a car at all - but she is going to buy three cylinder anyway.

If you want more RAM, spec your MacBook with more RAM - it’s not hard. Idk why you care how much RAM my computer has?

In this analogy the CPU and GPU *are* the engine and transmission. By putting too little RAM t actually even make use of those components, it would be the equivalent of selling a sports car that only had a 1/4-gallon gas tank, so you had to fill up every 5 miles.