Sidebar Sidebar
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

havaloc said:
Some people need a Toyota Camry. Some need a Toyota Supra. Apple sells both, pro branding aside.
Click to expand...
Some people don't need the rear seats in their car, so they should cost extra...

MapleBeercules said:
This is a production thing and not a marketing thing. Chips dont always come out perfect, so you need to bin them for what class they fall under, if you have a m3 chip that can operate just fine with 8gb of ram and 256gb of storage, why throw it out?
Click to expand...

Except its been shown that "DIY" RAM and SSD upgrades on an 8/256 M1 system are possible and work fine - just too complex and risky to be a practical proposition:
www.macrumors.com

M1 Mac RAM and SSD Upgrades Found to Be Possible After Purchase

Technicians in China have reportedly succeeded in upgrading the memory and storage of the M1 chip, suggesting that Apple's integrated custom...
www.macrumors.com www.macrumors.com

Anyway, Apple was shipping paltry 8GB RAM systems even when (a) they were using Intel chips and (b) you could upgrade them with 3rd party RAM and they'd work perfectly.

Sorry - this is pure marketing. The upgrade charges have nothing to do with - and are completely disproportionate to - actual costs.

Apple have never been cheap, but the real problem is that the base spec for Macs has been stuck at 8/256 for ten years - and the upgrade prices have remained much the same too. The issue is not new, but its getting more and more ridiculous as prices (particularly for large SSDs) have dropped and the amount of storage and RAM used by higher-resolution images/video and script-laden web pages has increased. It was already getting bad before Apple Silicon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ladybug, pdoherty, MrMojo1 and 1 other person
640kb should be enough for everyone eh? Attributed to Bill Gates although it seems he never really said that.
8 Gb should be enough for everyone can definitely be attributed to Cook.

Apple are *******s with both ram and storage capacity and pricing. If they wanted to be fair to their customers they should kill the 8 Gb RAM *and* the 256 Gb storage options *and* not raise the price a single cent.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: pdoherty, MrMojo1, P-DogNC and 2 others
EmanuelF said:
For everyone doing car comparisons, is more like a Ferrari body, Ferrari engine but an oil tank good for 20 miles. And yeah, for some that distance might be fine, but maybe you move your job further away next year.
Click to expand...
No one would buy that model because they would have done their own research on their needs. And because Ferrari has done their market research and knows that there is no market for it, it has never been offered as a model.

Apple has done their research and knows that there's a market for 8 GB MBPs.
 
The base M-series chip provide the performance for what the vast majority require. So that’s why Apple now has 5 variants, which stretches out the power & performance into mutiple, more expensive options.

Now, the latest scheme is to have a monster chip (M3), but bottleneck performance by having 8GB/256GB RAM & SSD. It’s a double win on Apple’s part.
1. The life of your new M3 will be drastically shortened by an ever increasing RAM hungry OS & apps — so a more frequent upgrade cycle.
2. And, for the second reason, so they can make mega bucks in charging a ridiculous $200 for RAM and SSD upgrades — should be $100!

Can you imagine what’s going to happen when a base M4 with 16GB RAM & 512 SSD is standard? The average person will have no reason to upgrade for literally a decade. Bye bye Mac sales…
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: TheNewLou
MapleBeercules said:
This is a production thing and not a marketing thing. Chips dont always come out perfect, so you need to bin them for what class they fall under, if you have a m3 chip that can operate just fine with 8gb of ram and 256gb of storage, why throw it out?! This is why intel has so many product lines when a new chip is released and the top chips are so expensive, they try to price out the demand curve for the high end product and sell everyone the binned ones.
Click to expand...
So what I'm reading is: Seeing as they're selling us seconds, they should be pricing them like seconds... I mean, most of the complaint here is that the price is way too high for what you get.
 
To those who disagree, how little is too little memory?

Or should all memory options be ditched and only the maximum amount offered. Anything lower would otherwise be bottlenecks. (Oh no. Apple is wrong again)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TheRoxyTheatre
boak said:
To those who disagree, how low is too low memory?

Or should all memory options be ditched and only the maximum amount offered. Anything lower would otherwise be bottlenecks. (Oh no. Apple is wrong again)
Click to expand...
16GB as a starting point is fine. Haven't seen anyone say it needs to be more than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheNewLou
boak said:
Another low-quality clickbait from that channel, which doesn't know what they're talking about. Every configuration has a bottleneck.

Would you call the base M chip a bottleneck too?

Need more? Buy more. Simple as that. Not everyone needs 16 GB.
Click to expand...
Exactly, it's a choice. If they end 8 they'll just keep 16 at the same price, and 8GB will need to pay more for RAM they don't need/want. They already did it witt the 15PM. 256 is still the same price even though they nixxed 128
 
  • Like
Reactions: boak
I see many say that 8 is not equal to 16. But what max tech compared is 2 MacBooks, one with 8 and one with 16. But that is not what apple is saying, its saying 8 on a MacBook is the same as 16 on let’s say a windows system. So they should compare it to a windows 16gb system with around the same specs. And that is of course difficult to do.

Before we make any conclusions, I would like to see that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FCX
In the olden days, Apple sold Macs with CD drives when everyone else had DVD drives

But you could easily remove the CD drive, put it in a cheap enclosure, and install your ideal DVD-R drive for not a lot of money

So now Apple overcharges for RAM—but these machines are unmodifiable. There is nothing you can do to make it better. And these low-memory machines will be e-waste in 3 years
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheRoxyTheatre
boak said:
Another low-quality clickbait from that channel, which doesn't know what they're talking about. Every configuration has a bottleneck.

Would you call the base M chip a bottleneck too?

Need more? Buy more. Simple as that. Not everyone needs 16 GB.
Click to expand...
How dare you ignore fact!

This is real world. I invite you to partake.
 
nottorp said:
8 Gb should be enough for everyone can definitely be attributed to Cook.
Click to expand...

Except that is not what was said.

Maybe the comparison to 16BG Windows machines was inept, but the bottom line is 8GB is plenty for many users.

GMShadow said:
Literally anyone trusts MaxTech? It’s like asking the hobo down on the street corner for stock tips.
Click to expand...

He told me to buy Thunderbird. What's the price? Thirty twice.
 
MapleBeercules said:
This is a production thing and not a marketing thing. Chips dont always come out perfect, so you need to bin them for what class they fall under, if you have a m3 chip that can operate just fine with 8gb of ram and 256gb of storage, why throw it out?! This is why intel has so many product lines when a new chip is released and the top chips are so expensive, they try to price out the demand curve for the high end product and sell everyone the binned ones.
Click to expand...
The answer is Apple should not bother with 8Gb configuration at all. its not so much the memory cost its incorporating it as unified memory. If Apple are serious about games, then 16Gb should be the lowest configuration and this will save them on binning, as they need not produce it. The extra cost is insignificant as its offset by removing the cost of producing 8Gb set ups, and where they've already got the processing procedure for 16Gb.

Much better for Apple to steal a march on competitors, especially where upgrading RAM on the competitors WINTEL platform are so cheap compared to the hefty cost Apple charges.

Some Mac software already stipulates over 8Gb, and Games will certainly require it, so to avoid problems Apple should now introduce ALL base machines as 16Gb
 
  • Like
Reactions: pdoherty and TheNewLou
boak said:
Another low-quality clickbait from that channel, which doesn't know what they're talking about. Every configuration has a bottleneck.

Would you call the base M chip a bottleneck too?

Need more? Buy more. Simple as that. Not everyone needs 16 GB.
Click to expand...
Not everyone needs an iPhone with 8GB of RAM, but Apple decided it’s what’s best for it, so it has it…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back