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’m responding to your comment, because the guy you were responding to was mischaracterizing my position. I didn’t say that that aspect (more RAM usage when nothing’s open) was only a Mac thing, though I think it generally does use a bit more at idle then Windows does, but that’s besides the point). I’m just pointing out he shouldn’t be shocked by the system using more RAM when nothing’s open.
You didn't say that word, I did. Your thought that Windows doesn't do the same things as MacOS for virtual memory is what I was *describing* as misinformation. You sure to like to deflect, don't you...
*FALSE*.
Also false, a Windows PC that uses an iGPU also has unified memory. What Windows PC's don't have that's different is on package RAM. (yet)
That wasn't your whole argument or you wouldn't have mentioned Windows at all if it were. And as I said, that's exactly what a Windows machine does as well.
I was meaning, where did I supposedly spread misinformation?…🤦🏼♂️🙄. What thing that I said was supposedly misinformation?… I didn’t think you were saying that I said the word “misinformation”, again, that wasn’t my point, clearly there’s some kind of miscommunication or misunderstanding going on… And it’s not deflecting to ask what you’re claiming I said that was allegedly “misinformation”, lol! 😂🤣
They use system resources differently, that’s just a fact, man. Maybe you want to argue about the extent of the differences, and if they’re similar or not, but they’re definitely not the same… Even if you think they’re similar and do the same basic things (which in many cases they do similar things, both use vRAM for instance), but matters like which processes the system prioritizes and how it prioritizes them, the system processes they’re running, etc. are different even if they’re “analogous”. They’re not the same system, this is basic logic that they don’t both run the exact same software, don’t use the exact same hardware, and don’t handle system resources in the exact same way…
Also, iGPUs are similar in some ways to Unified Memory, but they’re different in several ways as well. For starters, some Integrated Graphics system have their own separate vRAM for graphics processes, they don’t actually share one memory pool with the CPU. Often, even with systems where they’re both connected to the same RAM, there’s a software partition that takes some system RAM and utilizes it for the graphics, and this implementation still requires data duplication. Unified Memory doesn’t require data duplication, the GPU can access all of the same original data as the CPU, no partition. People keep making this claim that iGPUs are the same as Unified Memory, but many have broken down the differences between the two systems…
I mentioned Windows because he was comparing macOS to Windows. Of course Windows is going to come up. My point was that he didn’t mention that the 16GB RAM Windows computer was likely also using lots of RAM with nothing else open. Instead, he painted it as something specific to the 8GB MacBook Pro, which is misleading… And I should also point out that generally in my experience, Windows does idle with a bit less RAM usage. A friend of mine who’s a programmer switched from a Windows computer to a Mac when the M1 came out, and one of the first things he noticed was that macOS was using more RAM at idle than his prior Windows computer had with the same amount of RAM. That doesn’t mean it’s not still using a substantial amount of RAM with nothing else open, just I think it is a bit less from everything I’ve seen and heard…
Last edited:
You saying windows doesn't do the same things as Mac OS. It does, most certainly, without a shadow of a doubt.
I said it doesn’t do things the same way. I didn’t say they don’t do the same things in some regards, that’s a strawman argument. I said they are different in their approaches to leveraging system resources, that’s just a fact. Case in point, they both use vRAM, but the way that the two systems allocate physical RAM to system processes is different.
LOL. I know the comment above is old, but I just saw it.
I recently came back from Europe where coffee is not served the size of a meal like it is in the US ;-) Sometimes I'd drink an espresso (called simply cafe in some countries) or order an Americano which is like American-style drip coffee but smaller size.
Back in the US, when I ordered an espresso from Starbucks (and then from an independent cafe later), my small espresso of about 2oz came in a 12 or 16oz cup!!! It was a totally ridiculous and comical situation. For one thing, it came in a paper cup which is not very nice but I guess I would accept it since we are in the US. But does it really need to come in a 12oz or 16oz cup? At the very least, it should come in a small Dixie-size cup if it has to be paper.
People should look at this entry-level MacBook Pro as a Macbook Air Plus. It has a non-Pro chip in a Pro chassis. Once again, this discussion is kind of offensive to Pro Users. Pro users know what they need! They will only look at the 2000+ models, as they did before! But if it is that offensive that an entry-level MacBook Pro comes with 8Gb, when you buy one, hide the pro name with some tape.
Exactly, and may I add, that many professionals are perfectly fine and happy with 8GB of RAM. It doesn’t make them any less “pro”.
Agree! Sometimes there is a wrong idea of what a pro user is. In the Mac world, many consider only video editing a pro-related activity, forgetting all the other realms. For instance, I do a lot of coding for applications in aeronautical engineering (CFD simulations, controller design, wind tunnel data acquisition and real-time processing, real-time optimization, NN design and training, ...), which mainly require a nice CPU. RAM was never an issue! Am I less "Pro"?
Disclaimer: I don't care about the pro label.
Ya, it bugs me when some people try to gatekeep “pro” status based on RAM configuration, computer model, computer type (like iPad Pro isn’t “pro” argument), etc.
It doesn't show that at all - RAM simply *allows* for the performance of a system to happen. An absence of RAM prevents it. Think of having too little RAM like having too little gas in a sports car. The gas isn't what gives the car the performance, but an absence of it will prevent the performance.
The “test” didn’t show that big of a performance difference. At least not enough of one to make much difference in real-world use case for many people.
PS, also should be noted that the windows laptop he’s comparing it against has a separate graphics card (likely a NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 or higher) which has it’s own separate 8GB of ram that can be used for graphics processes, so that makes it a very unfairly stacked comparison. And you know what? That laptop doesn’t get close to the same battery runtime, doesn’t have as nice of a display (yes, even the MiniLED version isn’t as good as the MacBook Pro’s), and it is chunkier, bulkier, and heavier.
Last edited:
The analogy I would use is to liken ram to the amount of desk space you have.
You can do work on a smaller desk, but you will have to be more conscious of how you arrange your stuff on the desk. And if you are neat, you can still end up with sufficient desk space to do what you need, when you need it, though I agree that certain tasks simply may not be feasible on a smaller surface (ie: tasks that require more than than what a Mac physically has).
A larger desk does give one more room to work with, but depending on the task, it may not make a meaningful difference. For example, if I am typing on a laptop, more space is not going to make me any more efficient. And if you see the abundance of ram as an excuse to be equally messy, a bigger surface just means more stuff strewn over it, without necessarily giving the user more of what he wants - actual useable free space.
It seems that no matter how large the desk of table is, I end up with a working space that is about 16” by 12”. And if the table is smaller than that, then I begin taking up floor space.
It’s not greed, many people like 8GB of RAM, and that’s probably why the 8GB configuration sells so well and customer satisfaction is so high. Offering a cheaper option with less RAM isn’t greed, it’s adding cheaper options for those who like the 8GB configurations…
And offering an 8GB RAM option isn’t “intentionally putting brakes on it”. By that “logic”, offering 16GB instead of 32GB could be characterized as “intentionally putting brakes on it”, or for that matter, why not offering 32GB instead of 64GB? This doesn’t logically follow, just because some workflows require more RAM, doesn’t mean that all workflows require that much RAM, and just because there’s an option with less RAM, doesn’t mean that’s “intentionally putting brakes on it”. 😂
PS, don’t care about another random YouTuber with super niche workflow’s opinion about the 8GB RAM configuration. They sell very well, customer satisfaction is very high, so chances are that 8GB RAM is plenty for most people’s wants and needs! 👍🏻
And offering an 8GB RAM option isn’t “intentionally putting brakes on it”. By that “logic”, offering 16GB instead of 32GB could be characterized as “intentionally putting brakes on it”, or for that matter, why not offering 32GB instead of 64GB? This doesn’t logically follow, just because some workflows require more RAM, doesn’t mean that all workflows require that much RAM, and just because there’s an option with less RAM, doesn’t mean that’s “intentionally putting brakes on it”. 😂
PS, don’t care about another random YouTuber with super niche workflow’s opinion about the 8GB RAM configuration. They sell very well, customer satisfaction is very high, so chances are that 8GB RAM is plenty for most people’s wants and needs! 👍🏻
I have used it for quite some time, and there is no performance drop. My workflows are CPU intensive with low RAM requirements, so no swapping. The performance is amazing, what a beautiful machine! I LOVE when people start comparing the MacBook with Lamborghini and good roads, but then COMPLETELY forget that most people DO NOT even need a Lamborghini. And wake up, Lamborghini would not be the M3, it should be the binned M3 MAX at minimum.
Except, A. Apple never said 8GB is more than 16GH on a Mac, that’s a complete misrepresentation of what was actually said, which was that 8GB of RAM on the M-series chips is likely analogous to about 16GB on PCs due to the M-series Mac’s more efficient use of RAM. From my experience comparing both, I’d say this is true.
And it’s not paying more for less, that’s a silly argument. We’re literally talking about the cheapest model of MacBook Pro. It’s cheaper than the ones with more RAM, etc. Arguing that you’re somehow paying more for less is just absurd. You’re literally paying a lot less than for last year’s base model MacBook Pro, yet you get to benefit from all of the nice hardware like the beautiful display, the long battery runtime, the amazing sound system, the extra ports, etc, all while paying less for it. You’re “argument” if you can even call it that, makes zero sense…
No, that’s pretty much true. Even DDR5 only goes to 64 GiB/s. Some laptops use LPDDR5X, but they usually don’t have the memory on-package, so they have poorer latency.
Another question would be how “fast RAM” matters to most users.
No, I believe it is so they can collect more huge profits from additional BTO purchases. It is not savings some small change but more about encouraging people to spend more money on high margin BTO upgrades. But in the end, it is about higher profits (AKA Greed)
BTW Yuck just another YouTube clickbait video. You did not need to propagate it to make your point
My father bought an M1 MacBook Air with 8GB of ram. Perfectly happy with it.
And saved money on it buying at Costco on sale.
Stop with the outrage. People buy the 8GB version because they don't need to spend anymore than necessary for a Mac. Not everyone is Puget benching their laptops all day long.
And saved money on it buying at Costco on sale.
Stop with the outrage. People buy the 8GB version because they don't need to spend anymore than necessary for a Mac. Not everyone is Puget benching their laptops all day long.
That laptop won't last a lots of years, a mac with 16 GB/ 512 GB is more likely to last way way longer.
8/256 will get obsolete sooner than later.
Sure, that is true. But is it 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years? And isn’t that something that individual consumers should decide for themselves?