70 pages. Oh, man. Conclusion: 8gb RAM memory is not enough. Plenty is cool. The topic can be closed 
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
I agree with you that retailers should be making sure they stock the different configurations better. They should have all of the configurations stocked at least to some degree, even if they only stock a handful of the really high spec ones like the 128GB RAM M3 Max. But the 16GB models should be stocked well, since they’re probably the most likely choice beyond the 8GB RAM configurations. If retail stores aren’t stocking them well, then I think that’s a problem (though I also think it’s a separate problem).
I do think the used market will be fine, especially when you get more people upgrading from the M1 models. Currently there’s less of a used market for the M1 models and beyond because they’re still relatively new, though the 14” MacBook Pros have definitely helped in making the M1 models easier to get. And I’m already seeing plenty of 16GB RAM M1 models on the used/refurbished market, and they seem to be priced pretty well. The M-Series models in general do tend to hold their value pretty well, but I’ve still found some significant discounts on used/refurbished M1, M2, M1 Pro, etc. models with 16GB of RAM. And I think that the market will return to normal once we’re a couple more generations into Apple Silicon and some of the novelty of it wears off. I think the used market will probably continue to be about the same as it has been since the last user upgradable RAM model in 2012. Everything for the last 11 years has been fixed RAM, and people weren’t having issues getting discounted 16GB RAM MacBooks in that time as far as I’m aware. I guess I just think the market will adapt. If things do really change that quickly, and 8GBs is no longer enough, then Apple will likely up the base spec, and that will also reduce pricing on used 16GB models because people aren’t going to pay the same as they would before for a used older model with 16GB RAM if they can get a new one with more more for cheaper. I’ve seen this happen with the used/refurbished iPhone models when Apple ups the base storage. The models from previous iPhone models with that same storage amount drop in price in response, and the base specs from those years become even cheaper. I think the same would happen in the case of the MacBook. Maybe I’m wrong, and I’m not thinking of some variables or factors that would affect it differently, but that’s the precedence I’ve seen with other Apple products on the used Market.
And again, can I say, I really appreciate this discussion with you. I appreciate getting to understand your position and perspective, and not having to deal with all of the name-calling and other things some others have resorted to in this discussion. Thank you for being civil in this discussion, sometimes I fall short, but I try to be civil. 👍🏻
Last edited:
Probably, and you can skip reading a thread if you want. I think it's pretty good entertainment.I feel that at the end of 2024, 99% of fans will be screaming that 8GB is very little when they realize that it is very little.
Though I don't read some people's messages.
You can skip it, but I do not recognize the end and what is the end in the end ))))) People tried, wrote, 70 pages have already accumulated - a small book )))))There will soon begin discussions, worse than action movies ))))).Probably, and you can skip reading a thread if you want. I think it's pretty good entertainment.
And now he has. And it has proven that 8GB RAM in the M3 MBP is not the same as 16GB RAM in a Windows laptop. A shocking revelation!
Not shocking at all for anyone that uses multiple computers. It couldn't have been anything else.
Of course. Good to see some proof of it though since logic wasn't enough for a select few.
Another skewed and biased test to try to make a point. He went in with an obvious slant upfront, so not surprising he got “results” that back up his claim. He keeps referencing “I don’t have anything up, and it’s already using 5 of 8GBs”, but that’s how macOS works, it’s different from Windows. When it can, aka, when nothing else is open, macOS will make use of more RAM to speed up background processes. So this isn’t shocking at all, in fact, RAM usage is usually yet higher on the 16GB RAM model when nothing is open, but he failed to mention that… When more software is opened up, generally the system RAM usage reduces, prioritizing the processes that the user is performing. Also, he keeps parroting the same tired line “a computer this expensive shouldn’t have 8GBs”, while forgetting other aspects that make this system worth that much. The high quality display, unrivaled battery runtime, sound system, build quality, performance, all add value to the system. This laser focus on one spec while ignoring everything else about the computer makes zero sense. If someone replaced the body panels on a Mid-2012 MacBook Pro with 4GBs of RAM with plates of gold, people wouldn’t be sitting there “but it only has 4GBs of RAM, it’s not worth $1,600. They’d be buying it to take the gold panels off and melt them down, lol! 😂. The RAM spec alone doesn’t dictate the value of the computer… This is basic logic. The display quality alone is a good reason to buy the MacBook Pro at that price. And again, where was he complaining about the more expensive MacBook Pro base models the last two years being “too expensive”? Or is he just complaining now that there’s a cheaper option for people who don’t need, want, or use Davinci Resolve or Lightroom?
Stop saying that -- Windows does the same pre caching, memory compression, and paging, as Mac OS. They are both modern OS's, that's what they do.
It’s true, it’s different from Windows. If you’ve ever used both an 8GB RAM Mac and a 16GB RAM Mac, you’d know that the 16GB RAM Mac uses more RAM even when nothing’s running than the 8GB one does, and the 8GB one uses more when nothing’s open, because it’s using it to accelerate background system tasks. It’s because the system uses more RAM when it can for background tasks. Windows and macOS are both “modern OSes” but they don’t handle system resources the same.
Bull puckies.
As does Windows. You REALLY ought to stop saying that. For instance, my 64G RAM Windows 11 PC has 36G Cached, 27.5G in use, total committed 73.2G. And that's with an 8G VM running Windows 10, (that has close to the same status as the 8G Mac in the video), with nothing running. Of course with email, chrome, RDCMan, settings, Phone Link, Hyper-V Manager, and a video connection to the VM also running on the host.
Just facts, sorry if you don’t like them… 🤷🏼♂️. They aren’t the same system, they’re different, and they use system resources differently. Windows doesn’t = macOS. Very simple, two different systems with different code, and different approaches to how they make use of system resources…
Oh, and I’ll say it again, Macs use more RAM even when nothing’s open. And Macs with more RAM use more RAM than Macs with less even when nothing’s open…
Like I said, bull puckies, you don't know Windows. (and you don't even know MacOS, I remember how surprised you were with the pre-caching.) Of course Windows doesn't = MacOS, they are very different, but they do the same basic stuff that any paging(Virtual memory) OS does (there are minor differences in weighting and just what is pre cached), because it makes sense to do, OS's on bigger hardware did this before OSX even came out and Windows has been doing it as long as MacOS, if not longer.
I do know Windows, and I do know macOS. And I knew the difference in RAM usage before, because I have personal experience with both, and have seen the differences. Just saying “bull puckies” doesn’t change anything. If you mean to warm me up to your side of the argument, you’re certainly not winning me over with that… And my point about the RAM remains, he shouldn’t be “surprised” that macOS is using “5 of 8GB with nothing open”, because that’s the way macOS normally works, it uses more RAM to accelerate background tasks, and when you start opening software, many of those processes get shelved in favor of the user-facing stuff and the software. I’ve seen 10GBs of RAM in use on a 16GB Mac when nothing else was running. It isn’t surprising at all, and doesn’t prove his argument at all…
Correct. There may be areas where one is 20% more efficient than the other, but the idea that one uses RAM twice as efficiently as the other is absurd.
The fact that a Windows PC with 16Gb (RAM) DOES NOT PERFORM two times faster than a Macbook with 8Gb (RAM) shows how efficient macOS is. In fact, for the vast majority of tests, the difference was insignificant. Once again, people making noise about the lack of RAM are the ones who are NOT using the machine!
Exactly, as it isn't logical to use the RAM parameter to compare two different systems!
At the end of the day, reading a 10 GiB database on system A will take the same amount of RAM as reading a 10 GiB database on system B. Yes, one of them may use more efficient compression, or may be faster at paging out and back in, but both of them will prefer to just read the data into physical memory in full. Therefore, both will prefer to have that much RAM physically available.
Now, is that a common use case for the person who buys a $1,599 MacBook Pro? No. But twice the amount of RAM isn't about "performing two times faster" (you mean one time faster). It's about having two times the capacity to load data.
Sooner or later, a newer version of macOS will use more RAM. You'll buy your Mac thinking it's fine, but then each year comes a macOS upgrade, and it adds more background processes, and they need more memory. And the graphics effects intensify, and the GPU needs more memory as well. Plus, the apps you use, too, start using more memory. It's how it goes; it's how it's been going for half a century now. And at that point, no amount of "yes, but macOS is more efficient about it" (which I'm not sure it's true, certainly not to the extreme some are claiming here*) will be enough to cross that gap.
*) for example, Windows has had memory compression since 10, and it has had a similar caching mechanism since Vista.
But the question wasn’t about whether or not macOS uses RAM more efficiently (it does, but that wasn’t the point I made). What I said is that he shouldn’t be “shocked” when macOS does what it does and “uses lots of RAM even when nothing’s open”. Even 16GB Macs often do the same thing, using around 10GBs of RAM when nothing else is open. Once you start opening software, the RAM the system is using there for accelerating background processes and whatnot is reallocated to the user facing stuff. That’s how it works, and pretending to be shocked by that doesn’t prove his point at all, in fact, I’d argue it makes it look like he hasn’t really used a Mac that much. It’s not a shocking revelation at all, and it’s a bit different from Windows, and the way it uses RAM when nothing else is open. In my experience, Windows doesn’t use as much RAM when nothing’s open, that’s just a consistent difference between the two regardless of RAM configuration.
Well, I know MacOS and I know Windows really well, and they both do the same things with regards to virtual memory, no matter how you think they don't. Sure, there are slight differences, but the concepts are there...
And yes, I've run low memory configs for both, and I've only been working with computers for over 50 years...
No, I'm not trying to warm you up to my side of the argument anymore than you are trying to warm me up to your side. You're just wrong as far as I'm concerned and I was trying to get you to stop saying something that's not correct, I hate misinformation.
You're right about that, he shouldn't be surprised about that, but you also shouldn't be surprised that an 8G Windows PC would have a usage of 5G out of 8 either, and for the same reasons.
Ya, and notice he’s using really heavy apps for his “test” which most people don’t use to try to tip the scales. All of the apps he’s using to test are known RAM hogs, probably the only one most people interested in buying this configuration would use is Chrome. And even with the scales stacked in his favor, the MacBook Pro still compared pretty favorably. He makes all these fancy bar graphs, but reality is that we’re looking at a couple seconds differences, in practical real-world use, the differences are pretty negligible. And that’s for workflows that most would pick the M3 Pro configuration for. Most video editors would likely lean towards the better graphics performance of the M3 Pro configuration vs the cheap base M3, and same with professional photographers who are handling lots of photos in Lightroom. But the cheap base model 8GB MacBook Pro still performed well even for those tasks. What I’d be interested in figuring out is what the specs of that Windows laptop are. If it has a dedicated GPU, that could tip the scales in it’s favor in those particular situations that he wanted to focus on vs the basic M3 chip. The basic M3 has great graphics, but some dedicated GPU cards are extremely overpowered, and if he’s using one of those, and a few other hardware tricks, he might be tipping the scales even heavier by a bit of an unfair hardware comparison as well… But considering he entered with a slant, was probably looking for the best “tests” to prove his conclusions, even though they don’t reflect the real use-cases of most people that are going to be interested in this base spec, the 8GB RAM MacBook Pro actually performed very well, and it isn’t the kind of performance difference to elicit 70 pages of complaining over…
I don’t know where you think I said “misinformation”. 😂. I said they’re different systems (true), and use system resources differently (true). Slightly different is still different. I didn’t say they don’t share similarities in how they do some things, of course both have vRAM, I didn’t say they didn’t…🤦🏼♂️. They don’t both have Unified Memory, which seems to make a difference in speed and efficiency, but that wasn’t really the point either. The sole point I was communicating was regarding his supposed shock that it was using 5GBs of RAM with nothing open. He mentioned that multiple times, and that does two things: 1. For people who don’t know that that’s normal on all Macs, even one’s with higher RAM configurations, it’s misleading, and 2. For people who do know that that’s the way macOS normally works, it makes it look like he hasn’t really used a Mac that much, at least, not while monitoring the RAM usage…
And I didn’t say that an 8GB RAM Windows computer might not hit the same 5GB RAM usage. Again, that wasn’t the point. The point that he kept making a big deal about how much RAM it was using when nothing was open is the problem, and the way he phrased it would imply to someone who didn’t know any better that higher RAM configuration computers don’t use lots of RAM when nothing’s open as well.
This is true. (I'm not sure what you're responding to here; I wasn't responding to a post of yours.)
But that's also true of Windows. So it's a bit of a moot point. The two will differ in their detailed behavior, but the mechanisms are there in both.