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

[pdoherty]

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.

Your argument might make some sense if we didn't all know how much more RAM OSes and apps/browsers use today compared to 11 years ago. Anyone with the time or inclination could compare RAM available on an 8GB system after a boot on the OS X of 2011 to that available on an 8GB system on today's OS X to find out. My bet is there's probably twice as much available in 2011 after a boot. And the apps/sites were far less memory hungry then too. If apps/browsers were half as hungry that would make having double the RAM left after boot effectively worth 4 times as much (4 times as useful/effective).

 

[Kal Madda]

Your argument might make some sense if we didn't all know how much more RAM OSes and apps/browsers use today compared to 11 years ago. Anyone with the time or inclination could compare RAM available on an 8GB system after a boot on the OS X of 2011 to that available on an 8GB system on today's OS X to find out. My bet is there's probably twice as much available in 2011 after a boot. And the apps/sites were far less memory hungry then too. If apps/browsers were half as hungry that would make having double the RAM left after boot effectively worth 4 times as much (4 times as useful/effective).

Plenty of people use 8GB of RAM just fine. Some apps use more RAM, but lots of apps are actually getting more efficient as well. It hurts nobody to have a cheaper 8GB RAM option for people who only need 8GB RAM and not 16GB RAM. Plenty of PC manufacturers are still offering 8GB RAM configurations, it would be bizarre for Apple to not.

 

[theluggage]

It hurts nobody to have a cheaper 8GB RAM option for people who only need 8GB RAM and not 16GB RAM.

...and it wouldn't hurt people who only need 8GB if they got 16GB for the same price. You're assuming that going to 16GB as standard would jack up the price - most likely it wouldn't, and certainly not by the ridiculous $200 that Apple charge for upgrades.

The reality is that 8GB models are cheaper because Apple has (so far) gotten away with making money hand over fist by charging completely disproportionate prices for the RAM and SSD upgrades that many customers do actually need.

Or, to put it another way, Apple is making users who need 16GB subsidise the cost of the cheaper model (and probably losing sales in the long term - try "selling" the more savvy class of PC user on Mac and enjoy the crash and burn when you tell them its going to cost another $400 to match the RAM and storage of their current PC).

There's a constant stream of posts to MR from people agonising over whether 8GB would be enough for them or if they need to pay $200 for 16GB (...and often forgoe any special offers and order from Apple rather than walking in to a local store).

Plenty of PC manufacturers are still offering 8GB RAM configurations,

...on machines that cost half the price of the cheapest Mac, Apple has never been interested in the bargain bucket end of the market where the seller only makes a profit if you buy an extended warranty and a $100 oxygen-free gold plated USB cable (they prefer to make a profit on the machine and sell you an extended warranty & $100 USB cable...)

Sure, the PC market is huge and you can always hunt down an anti-bargain from Microsoft, Razer or even some remote buggy corner of Dell's labyrinthine website, but mostly, anything remotely comparable with a M2/M3 MacBook starts at 16GB.

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

Sure, because Dell are offering laptops in dilithium and gold-pressed latinum as standard, while Lenovo started using mithril in 2019.

Actually, Apple do offer the Powerbook G5, the 27" M3 iMac and 12" MacBook in unobtanium...

 

[Kal Madda]

...and it wouldn't hurt people who only need 8GB if they got 16GB for the same price. You're assuming that going to 16GB as standard would jack up the price - most likely it wouldn't, and certainly not by the ridiculous $200 that Apple charge for upgrades.

The reality is that 8GB models are cheaper because Apple has (so far) gotten away with making money hand over fist by charging completely disproportionate prices for the RAM and SSD upgrades that many customers do actually need.

Or, to put it another way, Apple is making users who need 16GB subsidise the cost of the cheaper model (and probably losing sales in the long term - try "selling" the more savvy class of PC user on Mac and enjoy the crash and burn when you tell them its going to cost another $400 to match the RAM and storage of their current PC).

There's a constant stream of posts to MR from people agonising over whether 8GB would be enough for them or if they need to pay $200 for 16GB (...and often forgoe any special offers and order from Apple rather than walking in to a local store).


...on machines that cost half the price of the cheapest Mac, Apple has never been interested in the bargain bucket end of the market where the seller only makes a profit if you buy an extended warranty and a $100 oxygen-free gold plated USB cable (they prefer to make a profit on the machine and sell you an extended warranty & $100 USB cable...)

Sure, the PC market is huge and you can always hunt down an anti-bargain from Microsoft, Razer or even some remote buggy corner of Dell's labyrinthine website, but mostly, anything remotely comparable with a M2/M3 MacBook starts at 16GB.



Sure, because Dell are offering laptops in dilithium and gold-pressed latinum as standard, while Lenovo started using mithril in 2019.

Actually, Apple do offer the Powerbook G5, the 27" M3 iMac and 12" MacBook in unobtanium...

Apple likely would up the price, that’s generally what’s happened in the past when they up the base spec. And even if they didn’t, I don’t see why we couldn’t have an 8GB configuration that’s that much cheaper. Why not have a $1400 8GB MacBook Pro? Several people here have said they don’t want an 8GB option to exist at all, even if it were cheaper and the 16GB option costed what the 8GB one currently does. People are saying 8GB is completely useless for work, and other such hyperbole. Personally, I don’t have any problem with the current pricing, even upgrading to 16GB is $200 cheaper than the base spec for a MacBook Pro used to be when it was just a M2 Pro chip option. And with the 8GB configuration, we can now get the Pro $400 cheaper than we could before.

As to your point about Windows PC users moving over, they often complain about many things. They already tend to think MacBooks are “overpriced” anyways. They complain about macOS. They complain that MacBooks aren’t laptops pretending to be tablets. What they forget is that MacBooks have displays that are better than the PCs they’re comparing them to, and have far longer battery runtime. Not everything can cater to Windows people, I think Windows people will only be happy if Macs are essentially turned into Windows PCs, with all the same downsides and problems just so they can feel like they have something better. Some Windows fans can be reasoned with, I’m not saying nobody will move over, but if every decision for the MacBooks were made to satisfy the Windows crowd, it would dilute what makes the Mac better for most of us.

Again, to summarize, many people here are upset that an 8GB option even exists, no matter whether it would be cheaper or not. And some think Apple is gouging for RAM, but have no real information on how much it actually costs Apple to produce said RAM. All we have is speculation and stabs in the dark at a possible number, but nobody actually knows what costs are involved, or what added costs may be involved in making their Unified Memory. I’ve also demonstrated that several PC manufacturers charge similar prices for RAM upgrades, or even double what Apple charges as in Microsoft’s case. Comparing the upgrade costs from the competitors, and considering that Apple’s RAM is faster in a Unified Memory configuration, I think the value is there, and they’re perfectly fine asking for $200 for RAM upgrades.

 

[Agincourt]

In other words if Apple simply made RAM a higher spec without jacking up the price, many more potential Apple buyers would buy in greater volume than Windows machines because a lot of time they look no further than those nice big numbers in comparison to PC machines. They're not needed, but still a welcome addition to an already expensive computer.

Now I'm not going to pretend to know better than Apple, as they've mastered the art of making profit... but the basis for increasing the stats to facilitate sales is valid.

 

[pdoherty]

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

Considering that's pretty much all anyone is allowed to stock (assuming here that Apple is preventing them from stocking the better configs to ensure they get more direct profitable sales themselves), a lot of people probably buy one thinking "it must be good if it's what they keep in stock" and buy it.

 

[colinwil]

@colinwil @FCX @Icaras Since you downvoted this, care to explain why "unified memory" prevents upgradeable memory? What is so magical that the RAM chips can't be moved to a memory module?

Ok - I'll bite

Downvoted, because of your assumption that it would be simple to move the RAM out of the SoC to regular slotted DIMM modules - and the implication that Apple only does this to force people to buy a more expensive Mac, loaded with their expensive RAM.

There are technical reasons why Apple chose to incorporate the RAM in the SoC - mainly to do with the close proximity of the RAM to the CPU, GPU, Neural engine and hardware encoders.

Of course Apple's memory is ridiculously overpriced. But that's a separate issue to whether they could simply provide user accessible RAM slots without affecting performance.

 

[ric22]

Ok - I'll bite

Downvoted, because of your assumption that it would be simple to move the RAM out of the SoC to regular slotted DIMM modules - and the implication that Apple only does this to force people to buy a more expensive Mac, loaded with their expensive RAM.

There are technical reasons why Apple chose to incorporate the RAM in the SoC - mainly to do with the close proximity of the RAM to the CPU, GPU, Neural engine and hardware encoders.

Of course Apple's memory is ridiculously overpriced. But that's a separate issue to whether they could simply provide user accessible RAM slots without affecting performance.

May I ask how much of a performance difference you think it makes? On which tasks might it be noticeable?

 

[Kal Madda]

May I ask how much of a performance difference you think it makes? On which tasks might it be noticeable?

This article explains the difference between ordinary RAM and Unified Memory.

Unified Memory vs. RAM: How Do They Compare?

Learn the differences between unified memory and RAM, how unified memory can transform your computer performance, and which is best for you!

history-computer.com

 

[Basic75]

This article explains the difference between ordinary RAM and Unified Memory.

Unified Memory vs. RAM: How Do They Compare?

Learn the differences between unified memory and RAM, how unified memory can transform your computer performance, and which is best for you!

history-computer.com

This "article" says "Unified memory is a modern memory technology that combines RAM and a hard drive into a single memory pool." and "Though unified memory can be accessed and used like RAM, it is non-volatile and will store its data without supplied power."

It reads like an AI with no understanding of the subject wrote this, mixing up different kinds of "unified memory" along the way. Or just writing complete and utter garbage, hard to tell.

 

[Basic75]

mainly to do with the close proximity of the RAM to the CPU, GPU, Neural engine and hardware encoders

But that's a separate issue to whether they could simply provide user accessible RAM slots without affecting performance.

So you're saying PCs can put (LP)DDR5 running at the same or higher frequencies as the chips in current Macs on a removable stick/module, but Apple can't because it needs "close proximity" to work? Why?

 

[nininiiiick]

These base models will never dissapear. These are the most important and revenue / profit driving models for Apple (even if they never sell). It is only a big bonus if they sell for Apple.

Really, how many ppl do you reckon buy the base model? ( percentage wise ) Do you think that Apple would see a substancial revenue loss if they start offering the base models with 16Gb of ram?

 

[nininiiiick]

Some people need a Toyota Camry. Some need a Toyota Supra. Apple sells both, pro branding aside.

Sure thing but then you cannot be claiming publicly that yeah your Toyota Camry actually goes like an Audi RS6.

 

[theluggage]

So you're saying PCs can put (LP)DDR5 running at the same or higher frequencies as the chips in current Macs on a removable stick/module, but Apple can't because it needs "close proximity" to work? Why?

You won't find a current* PC with upgradable LPDDR (low power) memory. That means most things in a MacBook-like form factor. For the moment, if it has user-upgradeable RAM it's almost certainly using regular DDR SODIMMs.

LPDDR memory can only be surface-mounted directly on the logic board as close to the CPU as possible. Apple have taken "close as possible" to the limit by mounting it on the CPU package. Put crudely, the longer the electrical path from the CPU to the RAM chips, the more power is needed to send high-speed signals at a given speed (and if I recall correctly, the power also goes up with the square of the speed).

* Samsung have recently announced "Modular LPDDR" but that's too new to be showing up in products yet: https://www.anandtech.com/show/2106...lity-samsung-introduces-lpcamm-memory-modules

...and ISTR seeing one PC laptop that had DDR5 SODIMMS for expansion as well as a base 16GB of LPDDR - but that would have implications for power consumption and physical bulk

 

[ender78]

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..

Tell that to the buyers at my corporation of 10,000 employees. Up until this year, our machines had 8GB of RAM and 128GB SSDs. 8GB of RAM in Windows SUUUUCKs. Same can't be said for MacOS.

 

[ender78]

In other words if Apple simply made RAM a higher spec without jacking up the price, many more potential Apple buyers would buy in greater volume than Windows machines because a lot of time they look no further than those nice big numbers in comparison to PC machines. They're not needed, but still a welcome addition to an already expensive computer.

Now I'm not going to pretend to know better than Apple, as they've mastered the art of making profit... but the basis for increasing the stats to facilitate sales is valid.

It would be fun to see what those margins truly are. The calculations/decision of what to sell for are made in a boardroom not in an underground lair. Whenever we see component breakdowns for any Apple hardware, they often completely ignore the cost of R&D. Can you not predict the "outlash/hype/press" that there would have been if Apple decided to eliminate the $1599 option and instead priced the 16GB at $1649-1699. Precedent forces Apple to put out machines that cost as much or lower than the "comparable" model from the previous generation.

We continue to buy the Macs that we want/need over Windows machines because they are dare I say "worth the price". I'm actually more bothered by the cost of SSD pricing than the RAM.

 

[bobcomer]

LPDDR memory can only be surface-mounted directly on the logic board as close to the CPU as possible.

Not for long, there will be a commercial release of LPCAMM next year, which is LPDDRX5 based...

AnandTech Forums: Technology, Hardware, Software, and Deals

Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

www.anandtech.com

 

[Basic75]

LPDDR memory can only be surface-mounted directly on the logic board as close to the CPU as possible.

I think it's safe to say that LPDDR5 CAMM modules, and laptops to stick them in, can be expected next year.

 

[theluggage]

Not for long, there will be a commercial release of LPCAMM next year, which is LPDDRX5 based...

I think it's safe to say that LPDDR5 CAMM modules, and laptops to stick them in, can be expected next year.

Er, yes, that would be why I mentioned "modular LPDDR5" and gave the link to Anandtech article in the very post you're replying too.

The modules are supposed to be going into production next year - it will be interesting to see how much they cost, if and when the big PC makers actually adopt them, and what capacities they offer. The economies aren't obvious - for high-volume systems, surface mounting 4 chips to the logic board during production is probably cheaper than fitting a compression connector and having another manufacturing step to fit the module. Pretty obvious that they're not gonna work with Apple Silicon, though, unless the M4 is going to have wiings!

My guess is that the main use of these will be to drive adoption of LPDDR in higher-end systems that currently use regular DDR5 to get expandability beyond 16-32G.

 

[Kal Madda]

This "article" says "Unified memory is a modern memory technology that combines RAM and a hard drive into a single memory pool." and "Though unified memory can be accessed and used like RAM, it is non-volatile and will store its data without supplied power."

It reads like an AI with no understanding of the subject wrote this, mixing up different kinds of "unified memory" along the way. Or just writing complete and utter garbage, hard to tell.

The entire point of Unified Memory vs standard RAM is that UMA removes bottlenecks on how much data can be shared from the CPU or GPU (ordinary RAM restricts the flow of data if you will by nature of it’s bus connections, and need to contact other hardware and exchange data), and the data is able to be stored in one common pool. And because the UMA is part of the CPU, you don’t have the latency of bus connections that would slow down data processing in standard RAM. Ordinary RAM has more limitations on how fast it can process data due to bus connections and separate channels for data to be processed within. Ordinary RAM could be viewed as a tollbooth on a turnpike, dividing and slowing down traffic, while UMA is almost like an open road. Apple’s talked about these benefits, so it’s hardly just made up by the article. And if one article isn’t enough for you, here’s another one.

What is unified memory? Apple's memory architecture explained

Apple's unified memory architecture is an all-important specification used across its Macs. Here are the basics of unified memory.

www.trustedreviews.com

You may not like it, but UMA is built into the M-chips, so this very well could affect the pricing due to potential extra production complexity over slotting it into a bus connection. But UMA can just do things ordinary RAM simply can’t because it has less latency, and can directly share data on one common pool, making it faster and more energy efficient, so I think the value is there. You don’t, that’s fine, but nobody’s forcing you to buy it, if you like ordinary RAM and Windows PCs better, you can buy one of those…

 

[Kal Madda]

So you're saying PCs can put (LP)DDR5 running at the same or higher frequencies as the chips in current Macs on a removable stick/module, but Apple can't because it needs "close proximity" to work? Why?

The closer proximity makes it faster. More distance, more latency. By having the UMA as part of the M chip, it can be accessed more directly by the CPU and GPU, bypassing bus connections that create more latency.

 

[bobcomer]

Er, yes, that would be why I mentioned "modular LPDDR5" and gave the link to Anandtech article in the very post you're replying too.

The modules are supposed to be going into production next year - it will be interesting to see how much they cost, if and when the big PC makers actually adopt them, and what capacities they offer. The economies aren't obvious - for high-volume systems, surface mounting 4 chips to the logic board during production is probably cheaper than fitting a compression connector and having another manufacturing step to fit the module. Pretty obvious that they're not gonna work with Apple Silicon, though, unless the M4 is going to have wiings!

My guess is that the main use of these will be to drive adoption of LPDDR in higher-end systems that currently use regular DDR5 to get expandability beyond 16-32G.

I didn't remember that.

I guess it's to appeal to the builders market, but for me, I'd rather just go with normal socketed DDR, it's cheaper and for most uses, you could never even tell the difference. I'm already beyond 16-32G. My smallest machines are 32G and it goes up from there.

 

[theluggage]

Whenever we see component breakdowns for any Apple hardware, they often completely ignore the cost of R&D.

...they often also ignore the sort of quantity discounts and economies of scale that an outfit the size of Apple can negotiate - esp. if they can use the same part across multiple ranges. Electronic component prices depend hugely on how many you buy. Heck, Apple are so big that the market price of something like flash memory probably depends more on how much Apple decides to use than vice versa.

Meanwhile, the way that R&D expenditure gets recouped/spread out over years/written off against tax/reconciled with various income streams etc. makes rocket science look simple. The job of an accountant is to convince the shareholders that you're making money hand over fist while convincing the taxman that you're haemorrhaging cash - all while adhering to "standard accounting practices" (i.e. not actually committing fraud). Last time I even tried to look at an Apple quarterly statement I recall a cost added to Mac sales that was an estimate of the nominal value of future software upgrades over the supposed lifetime of the machine....

There's also logistical issues - having two models of a machine with different baked-in RAM sizes is more logistically complex than having a single model. How many of each do you manufacture? How many do you ship to stores? How many sales do you lose if you run out of one or the other? I bet Apple have a nominal cost assigned to that somewhere in their calculations.

For example, I can't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if the whole MBP/MBA SSD bandwidth knobbling thing was because it let them use the same 256GB flash chips in both the 256GB and 512GB configs, giving better economies of scale than continuing to use two 128GB chips in the 256GB model and 2x256GB chips in the 512GB model.

Precedent forces Apple to put out machines that cost as much or lower than the "comparable" model from the previous generation.

...yet every other technical spec increases steadily - sometimes dramatically - with each new model, even when the price stays the same. What's special about RAM and SSD capacity that makes it OK for those to remain static while everything else improves?

 

[ric22]

Do any of the defenders of soldered RAM here have any evidence of statistically significant performance gains they'd like to share with the group?

 

[ksj1]

Do any of the defenders of soldered RAM here have any evidence of statistically significant performance gains they'd like to share with the group?

I just took a look at your post history. Do you ever not complain about Apple?