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

[ric22]

So true! I remember when people were "crying" because the iPhone had 2GB or 4GB and were comparing it to phones running Android. Yet the iPhone was so much more responsive even at an older age. People look at numbers and not at the overall system design and architecture. This is another made-up "gate" to attract views and monetize from something ridiculous. Do you know who isn't complaining? The people who bought the baseline models! Customer satisfaction is through the roof!

Um, I guess you didn't keep the early iPhones for very long? IPhones all the way to iPhone 6 all eventually ran like crap a few years later due to the lack of RAM! People were literally having to upgrade because their phones were soooo slow after doing system updates. I personally remember switching out both iPhone 4 and 6 for that reason. More RAM would have gone a LONG way.

And yes, Android phones of that period also had slowdown problems, and sometimes worse, but that doesn't excuse Apple's RAM penny pinching or storage penny pinching, both of which lead to e-waste being generated much much sooner than was necessary.

Edit: None of the phones I mentioned above had more than 1GB RAM, so to be clear I'm not commenting on 4GB RAM phones, but the older ones.

 

[chucker23n1]

Um, I guess you didn't keep the early iPhones for very long? IPhones all the way to iPhone 7 all eventually ran like crap a few years later due to the lack of RAM!

Well, it wasn't just the RAM, but yeah.

The iPhone and iPhone 3G were particularly notorious for this. They simply had way too little RAM to run iOS 4 properly, yet they did receive that update, with no ability to downgrade.

 

[ImKo96]

Um, I guess you didn't keep the early iPhones for very long? IPhones all the way to iPhone 7 all eventually ran like crap a few years later due to the lack of RAM! People were literally having to upgrade because their phones were soooo slow after doing system updates. I personally remember switching out both iPhone 4 and 6 for that reason. More RAM would have gone a LONG way.

And yes, Android phones of that period also had slowdown problems, and sometimes worse, but that doesn't excuse Apple's RAM penny pinching or storage penny pinching, both of which lead to e-waste being generated much much sooner than was necessary.

You are talking with the wrong guy. I still have an iPhone 7 and I am pretty happy with it (3rd battery)! Once again you are ignoring the whole system design. Those iPhones became slower due to the battery not being able to provide peak and sustained power. I agree with you that Apple makes gigantic profits with 200$ upgrades, but the experience of baseline models? It is just fine!

 

[chucker23n1]

This is another made-up "gate" to attract views and monetize from something ridiculous.

Nah, it's a valid criticism. The original Retina 13-inch MacBook Pro from 2012, for $1,699, had 8 GiB RAM. Now, 11 years later, a product in a rather similar spot, the base 14-inch MacBook Pro, for $1,599, also has 8 GiB RAM.

Now, yes, the RAM has gotten a lot faster. It went from 1600 MT/s to 6400 MT/s. And its latency has gotten way down, because it's on the same package as the SoC.

(Both that 13-inch and this 14-inch had integrated graphics, so both used shared memory. So that part is neither a plus nor a minus.)

As for a "gate": I'm not saying this is a catastrophe and that Tim Cook needs to be fired. I just think the next generation should at least bump the base to 12. It feels overdue.

Do you know who isn't complaining? The people who bought the baseline models! Customer satisfaction is through the roof!

Well, if you're gonna bring that up: what about the people who would've bought one but thought it wasn't a good deal?

 

[ric22]

You are talking with the wrong guy. I still have an iPhone 7 and I am pretty happy with it (3rd battery)! Once again you are ignoring the whole system design. Those iPhones became slower due to the battery not being able to provide peak and sustained power. I agree with you that Apple makes gigantic profits with 200$ upgrades, but the experience of baseline models? It is just fine!

Sorry, I made a typo- it should have been 6 not 7. I edited it, before you replied

 

[ImKo96]

Nah, it's a valid criticism. The original Retina 13-inch MacBook Pro from 2012, for $1,699, had 8 GiB RAM. Now, 11 years later, a product in a rather similar spot, the base 14-inch MacBook Pro, for $1,599, also has 8 GiB RAM.

It is a valid criticism if nothing else had changed (a wow display, ARM chip design, SSD & its controller, and the efficacy of macOS).

Well, if you're gonna bring that up: what about the people who would've bought one but thought it wasn't a good deal?

As I said before, let the market decide. True "pros" know how to choose!

 

[Kal Madda]

Nah, it's a valid criticism. The original Retina 13-inch MacBook Pro from 2012, for $1,699, had 8 GiB RAM. Now, 11 years later, a product in a rather similar spot, the base 14-inch MacBook Pro, for $1,599, also has 8 GiB RAM.

Now, yes, the RAM has gotten a lot faster. It went from 1600 MT/s to 6400 MT/s. And its latency has gotten way down, because it's on the same package as the SoC.

(Both that 13-inch and this 14-inch had integrated graphics, so both used shared memory. So that part is neither a plus nor a minus.)

Well, if you're gonna bring that up: what about the people who would've bought one but thought it wasn't a good deal?

It isn’t really a valid criticism, because it would be similar to people criticizing cars for still using rubber tires. “But they used rubber tires in the first automobiles in the early 1900s, the outrage of it all!” If 8GBs is still working well for most people, why not continue to offer it as a choice? In other words, if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it. And judging by customer satisfaction and the success of the base models, I don’t see any reason to assume it’s “broken”.

Trying to compare a new MacBook Pro against the 2012 MacBook Pro based on only one spec is quite odd. As someone who owns a Mid 2012 MacBook Pro that even has 16GB of RAM, I can tell you right now an 8GB M1 MacBook Air can whip it’s butt in pretty much every way. You err by ignoring all of the other significant differences between these systems and only focusing on a RAM number. Besides, your argument is a bad one, because I could just as easily dredge up examples of laptops from that time period that came with 16GB of RAM and argue “see, x laptop from 11 years ago had 16GB of RAM, so 16GB of RAM isn’t enough today.”

And I’ve used both a Mid 2012 MacBook Pro and an M1, don’t try to convince me that the integrated graphics on that Mid 2012 MacBook Pro is the same as the M1, because it’s just not. Not by a long shot… Integrated graphics aren’t exactly the same as the Unified Memory system on the M-Series chips, even if you tried to argue they were similar in some ways. They’re different systems, and comparing integrated graphics from an 11 year-old computer to Unified Memory on the M-Series systems is just ridiculous…

People have the ability to do their own research and decide which RAM capacity they feel more comfortable with for their use case. I find it a very big stretch that a lot of pros don’t have any idea of how much RAM their workflow would benefit from, and are just going to be duped by some Internet forums into getting the wrong RAM configuration because they can’t think for themselves and do their own research… 🙄

 

[ric22]

Those iPhones became slower due to the battery not being able to provide peak and sustained power.

iPhone 6 with a replacement battery was still a disaster on its final ever software, by the way. It wasn't just a power issue. It was not up to the task for running that version of IOS and it wrecked the phone. If I even jumped between two large Apps, such as WeChat, the phone was need to reload everything from disk. If that's not a RAM issue, well, 👀

 

[chucker23n1]

It is a valid criticism if nothing else had changed (a wow display, ARM chip design, SSD & its controller, and the efficacy of macOS).

And those help (well, I'm not really sure how the display helps; you might), but no matter how fast the SoC or SSD, at some point, you want to stuff multiple gigabytes' worth of data into your RAM, and oops, you don't have enough physically available, so the OS needs to swap. That's wasteful, it's slow, and it creates strain on the SSD. And eleven years later, Apple can do better.

 

[chucker23n1]

It isn’t really a valid criticism, because it would be similar to people criticizing cars for still using rubber tires.

This is definitely up there in "worst car analogies ever".

“But they used rubber tires in the first automobiles in the early 1900s, the outrage of it all!”

We can keep playing that silly game.

"But they didn't put airbags, ABS, and catalytic converters in cars in the 1970s, and it was fine!"

"But humanity survived without electricity for a million years!"

It's a completely pointless argument to make on a friggin' technology forum.

If 8GBs is still working well for most people, why not continue to offer it as a choice?

Why stop there? My first computer had 64 KiB. Why offer gigabytes at all!

 

[ArkSingularity]

Why stop there? My first computer had 64 KiB. Why offer gigabytes at all!

I guarantee you, if Apple upgraded the base spec to 12GB or 16GB, nobody here would be complaining. (Folks will say that they'd just increase the price, but wholesale RAM prices have gone down over the years, not up).

 

[Kal Madda]

This is definitely up there in "worst car analogies ever".



We can keep playing that silly game.

"But they didn't put airbags, ABS, and catalytic converters in cars in the 1970s, and it was fine!"

"But humanity survived without electricity for a million years!"

It's a completely pointless argument to make on a friggin' technology forum.



Why stop there? My first computer had 64 KiB. Why offer gigabytes at all!

The point of my “car analogy” was to point out how silly the argument you’re making about “they used this 11 years ago so they shouldn’t still use it today” is. That argument isn’t a good argument. And my point was that it’s a useless argument, because it isn’t mine, it’s yours. You’re the one arguing that because Apple used 8GB of RAM 11 years ago, they shouldn’t still be using 8GB today. Which is quite a silly argument.

The reason it’s a silly argument is because things develop as there’s need to do so. Base RAM specs go up when most software needs more RAM. Things have kind of settled when it comes to the RAM that’s required. OSes have matured, and developed ways to use RAM more efficiently. The reason they don’t still make 64KiB RAM computers is because they would be incapable of running modern OSes, let alone modern software. 8GB of RAM is perfectly capable of running modern macOS and modern software that runs on macOS. I’m sure eventually if lots of software start needing more RAM, they would probably bump up the base spec, but today, macOS and modern software run perfectly fine on 8GB of RAM, and I don’t see that changing any time really soon.

 

[Kal Madda]

I guarantee you, if Apple upgraded the base spec to 12GB or 16GB, nobody here would be complaining. (Folks will say that they'd just increase the price, but wholesale RAM prices have gone down over the years, not up).

Precedent tells us price would increase, you can ignore that if you want, but it doesn’t change that the price would likely be affected. And people weren’t on 68 page long threads complaining about the more expensive base spec MacBook Pro models from the last two years, only now that there’s a cheaper and more accessible option that also offers a lower configuration option are people complaining…

 

[ArkSingularity]

Precedent tells us price would increase, you can ignore that if you want, but it doesn’t change that the price would likely be affected. And people weren’t on 68 page long threads complaining about the more expensive base spec MacBook Pro models from the last two years, only now that there’s a cheaper and more accessible option that also offers a lower configuration option are people complaining…

Should we go back to 4GB to get a $100 price reduction?

 

[Kal Madda]

Should we go back to 4GB to get a $100 price reduction?

We’re not talking about “going back”, plenty of computers currently use 8GB of RAM. And 8GBs of RAM runs macOS and its apps perfectly fine.

 

[ArkSingularity]

We’re not talking about “going back”, plenty of computers currently use 8GB of RAM. And 8GBs of RAM runs macOS and its apps perfectly fine.

Why not? These same computers would work fine at 4GB. I've proven it by loading Sonoma into a 4GB VM, it could handle web browsing with a handful of other apps just fine.

 

[chucker23n1]

The point of my “car analogy” was to point out how silly the argument you’re making about “they used this 11 years ago so they shouldn’t still use it today” is. That argument isn’t a good argument.

It is, though, because RAM requirements have been growing across the board. Tire technology has not. (Please don't @ me if it has, in fact, improved; I don't care.)

You’re the one arguing that because Apple used 8GB of RAM 11 years ago, they shouldn’t still be using 8GB today. Which is quite a silly argument.

It isn't.

In no other era of the Mac would this have been acceptable. No 1995 Mac started with the original 1984 Mac's 128 KiB. No 2003 Mac started with the 1992 Macintosh LC II's 2 MiB. No 2011 Mac started with the 2000 iBook's 64 MiB.

Now, granted, the progression has slowed since. But it hasn't come to a standstill. 11 years later, the base memory should go up. Especially when we aren't even talking about the low end.

8GB of RAM is perfectly capable of running modern macOS and modern software that runs on macOS.

So is 7. Or 6. Or 5. Heck, why not start at 4?

 

[Kal Madda]

Why not? These same computers would work fine at 4GB. I've proven it by loading Sonoma into a 4GB VM, it could handle web browsing with a handful of other apps just fine.

If it worked just fine, and was enough for most people’s needs, then sure. Somehow I don’t believe that’s actually the case though… And you can do a lot more than handle web browsing and a handful of other apps with the 8GB configuration.

 

[ArkSingularity]

If it worked just fine, and was enough for most people’s needs, then sure. Somehow I don’t believe that’s actually the case though… And you can do a lot more than handle web browsing and a handful of other apps with the 8GB configuration.

The same argument can be made for a 16GB configuration. We're talking about a $1600 machine here (and, having used both, yes, 8GB can handle everyday workloads, but there is a noticeable difference going up to 16GB).

 

[Kal Madda]

It is, though, because RAM requirements have been growing across the board. Tire technology has not. (Please don't @ me if it has, in fact, improved; I don't care.)



It isn't.

In no other era of the Mac would this have been acceptable. No 1995 Mac started with the original 1984 Mac's 128 KiB. No 2003 Mac started with the 1992 Macintosh LC II's 2 MiB. No 2011 Mac started with the 2000 iBook's 64 MiB.

Now, granted, the progression has slowed since. But it hasn't come to a standstill. 11 years later, the base memory should go up. Especially when we aren't even talking about the low end.



So is 7. Or 6. Or 5. Heck, why not start at 4?

My point is that the progression has slowed, and most people’s needs are still met by 8GB of RAM. When and if that changes, then I’m sure Apple will up the base spec. But judging from the popularity of the base spec MacBooks, and the high customer satisfaction, I don’t think we’re at that point yet.

 

[ArkSingularity]

My point is that the progression has slowed, and most people’s needs are still met by 8GB of RAM. When and if that changes, then I’m sure Apple will up the base spec. But judging from the popularity of the base spec MacBooks, and the high customer satisfaction, I don’t think we’re at that point yet.

Personally, I think we're nearing it. I'm a bit surprised Apple didn't go ahead and up the spec with the $1600 models, but I do think it will probably happen in the next couple of years.

 

[Kal Madda]

The same argument can be made for a 16GB configuration. We're talking about a $1600 machine here (and, having used both, yes, 8GB can handle everyday workloads, but there is a noticeable difference going up to 16GB).

And again, you’re ignoring all of the other specs that make it a $1600 computer. High quality XDR displays, high quality sound systems, unrivaled battery runtime all up the price point. The last two years, it was a $2000 computer, and people weren’t complaining about the base spec those years, at least not to this degree. A $400 price reduction is a decent reduction, and even if you choose to upgrade to 16GB, you’re still getting it cheaper than the prior two years. I think they should offer every RAM configuration available for the chips they use in the computers they use them in. The M3 supports 8GB of RAM as it will be used in the MacBook Air, iPad Pro, and Mac Mini, so it doesn’t make sense to artificially restrict the choices available for the MacBook Pro to only 16GB and 24GB configurations of the M3 chip. And that would also cheat consumers out of the cheaper price point that the 8GB option affords.

 

[ArkSingularity]

And again, you’re ignoring all of the other specs that make it a $1600 computer. High quality XDR displays, high quality sound systems, unrivaled battery runtime all up the price point. The last two years, it was a $2000 computer, and people weren’t complaining about the base spec those years, at least not to this degree. A $400 price reduction is a decent reduction, and even if you choose to upgrade to 16GB, you’re still getting it cheaper than the prior two years. I think they should offer every RAM configuration available for the chips they use in the computers they use them in. The M3 supports 8GB of RAM as it will be used in the MacBook Air, iPad Pro, and Mac Mini, so it doesn’t make sense to artificially restrict the choices available for the MacBook Pro to only 16GB and 24GB configurations of the M3 chip. And that would also cheat consumers out of the cheaper price point that the 8GB option affords.

Personally (and I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion), but I think they should have gone ahead and given it 16GB in this price bracket. Apple doesn't have 17 different product lineups, they tier a lot of different things into a few different models.

With regards to the old starting price of $2000 for the base models, here's the thing: Because that was a base model, it was stocked at a lot of third party retailers. People who weren't near an Apple Store didn't usually need to special order a machine to get 16GB, and because it was the base model, the discounts during sales often made it a very affordable machine (for what it was). The $2000 machine is no longer the base model, and the upgraded ones don't always see the same kinds of frequent discounts.

The real prices for this configuration on the M3 generation may have slid up for a lot of users, not down, because of the number of users who bought these machines at a discount. It waits to be seen whether retailer sales will discount the $2000 non-base configuration to the same extent that the old $2000 base model configuration was discounted.

 

[chucker23n1]

And again, you’re ignoring all of the other specs that make it a $1600 computer. High quality XDR displays, high quality sound systems, unrivaled battery runtime all up the price point.

It's being ignored because this thread isn't about that.

I'm typing this on that very chassis. A 14-inch M1 Pro MacBook Pro. Yep, the display is great. The sound is great. The battery runtime frankly isn't, but it's probably a lot better on the M3. But that's all moot, because this thread is about RAM.

The last two years, it was a $2000 computer,

Or a $1,299 computer, depending on how you look at it.

 

[Kal Madda]

Personally (and I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion), but I think they should have gone ahead and given it 16GB in this price bracket. Apple doesn't have 17 different product lineups, they tier a lot of different things into a few different models.

With regards to the old starting price of $2000 for the base models, here's the thing: Because that was a base model, it was stocked at a lot of third party retailers. People who weren't near an Apple Store didn't usually need to special order a machine to get 16GB, and because it was the base model, the discounts during sales often made it a very affordable machine (for what it was). The $2000 machine is no longer the base model, and the upgraded ones don't always see the same kinds of frequent discounts. The real prices for this configuration on the M3 generation may have slid up for a lot of users, not down, because of the number of users who bought these machines at a discount.

I think 8GBs is totally acceptable as a base spec, and you think it should be higher. That’s fine, we don’t have to agree, I just think it’s nice to have a cheaper option that’s more accessible, and these articles and other things are saying this option shouldn’t even exist, not just saying it should be reduced in price.

And if stores aren’t stocking enough of the upgraded versions, then that’s a separate issue. If I want a 1TB iPhone Pro, and they don’t carry it at the store, that doesn’t mean that 1TB should be the new base spec for all iPhone Pros. And as to discounts, several stores did discount the configurations with the other chips as well, and they discounted the 16GB M3 one as well for Black Friday. And again, discount pricing is a different issue.