Prove it then. Not against an Intel Mac with a chip designed a decade ago. Take a hypermodern AMD or Intel competitor, 16GB vs 8 on the M3, and put it through heavy testing, and I mean singular workloads with data sets larger than 8GB, not just 20 tabs it can swap out (which the verge says even beachballs on 8GB).
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 on M3 MacBook Pro 'Analogous to 16GB' on PCs, Claims Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have a Legion Pro gaming laptop with 32GB of RAM. One of the GPUs is an RTX 3080 with 16GB of its own RAM. The other is the Ryzen iGPU, which reserves 4GB of system RAM for its own use.
There are definitely a bunch of inefficiencies built into that arrangement that the Apple SOCs with their unified memory do not suffer from. Just eliminating the need to copy things back and forth between system memory and the GPU's memory is a massive benefit.
So, I still think it's stingy AF that Apple didn't just slap 16GB in there and call it a day, if only because it really is dirt cheap and to avoid all this wailing and gnashing of teeth, but it's also true that Apple silicon really is more efficient in a lot of ways just because of how it's designed.
I was told a few messages back that I'm not a professional since my workflow isn't RAM or compute heavy, so apparently "pro" workflows only count as "pro" if they involve a whole bunch of really complicated math?
So many people seem incapable of even considering the fact that their needs are not everyone's needs.
False, the unified memory is just faster and efficient but it does NOT overcome the RAM size.
It baffles my mind that Apple is still selling 8GB MBs. For a few bucks more, they would have created so much more goodwill than disdain.
That right there is my main problem with it.
You're the richest company in the world, RAM is dirt cheap, and you have to nickel and dime people like that?
And you sell arguably under-specced and non-upgradeable machines that are more likely to become e-waste faster because of it while at the same time crowing about how deeply you care about sustainability and the environment?
It's all a bit rich.
You are defining my wife as a non-pro, since you’re saying she doesn’t need an M3 MBP. Or if you are saying she’s a pro, then the MacBook Air must be a pro machine, too, even though Apple doesn’t call it pro. That was the reason for my initial sarcastic comment about rendering 8K Canon Raw footage on an Air. People around here treat every computer like it should be able to do the same job as a Mac Studio Ultra. As a pro, she needs a pro computer, not an Air.
Pros all have different needs, and she would love to have an M3 MBP. As a business executive, why would you get a lesser machine and take chances? Keep in mind both the Air and base MBP have essentially the same SoC once Apple gets around to updating the Air. It’s not horsepower she needs. It’s the other pro aspects of the machine.
I had no luck managing my 100K+ Photos library on Macbook Pro M1 on 8GB. It would constantly freeze and stutter and I just gave up.
I then put 64gb ram on my iMac 2020 27" and that thing just flies browsing through my Photos. So in my use case, 8gb on M1 MBP no good.
I then put 64gb ram on my iMac 2020 27" and that thing just flies browsing through my Photos. So in my use case, 8gb on M1 MBP no good.
This point is not talked about nearly enough. With Intel/AMD based competitors, you can buy machines that allow you to add memory/storage if your needs change. And those upgrades come at a fraction of what Apple wants up front.
16 GB is the minimum amount of RAM that should ship on any machine labeled Pro. Period. End of discussion.
As someone with no first hand experience:
A coworker recently bought a M2 MacBook used and decided to enroll it to work (which is supported for us) and use it at work to help him learn MacOS. He has set up the machine with everything his PC is setup with; Office, Teams, VS code, GitHub desktop, browsers etc. He is super happy by how well it works.
Just last week, in passing I asked him what exact model of machine did he get. He said "8GB of RAM" and I was floored.
What's funny about this is that people would not doubt that (pick your favorite Linux distro) can run just fine with 8GB of RAM on a laptop. Why is MacOS different?
A coworker recently bought a M2 MacBook used and decided to enroll it to work (which is supported for us) and use it at work to help him learn MacOS. He has set up the machine with everything his PC is setup with; Office, Teams, VS code, GitHub desktop, browsers etc. He is super happy by how well it works.
Just last week, in passing I asked him what exact model of machine did he get. He said "8GB of RAM" and I was floored.
What's funny about this is that people would not doubt that (pick your favorite Linux distro) can run just fine with 8GB of RAM on a laptop. Why is MacOS different?
Every computer uses swap, regardless of how much RAM it has. It doesn't really matter how much swap is being used, what matters is is the computer slowing down due to lack of RAM. And I have not been able to get this computer to slow down.
But to answer your question: I currently have these apps open: Safari with 6 tabs, Notion, Mail, Maps, Music, Drafts, Notes, Pages, Downie, Preview and Activity Monitor (to check RAM-usage). I have 8 GB of RAM, and I'm using 6.81GB (1.93GB App memory, 1.39 Wired Memory, 2.87GB Compressed). I have 1.32GB of cached files and I'm using 334MB of Swap.
Note: I'm not including various apps that are running in the menubar. Those include Raycast, Hook and Shortcuts. Alfred is there as well, but it's disabled for now.
Heck, I have 16GB on my M1 MBA and I have to close apps a few times per day to make it through. CPU/GPU performance is still wonderful for my use.
It was probably through a 3rd party Amazon retailer - Like Adorama or Excomp(sp). Or it could have been a special buy of products Apple was clearing out or slow moving versions - but it is not typical. Another example is look at Amazon, Costco and Bestbuy. Do any one of them list a 16GB iMac M3 currently? Nope.
I agree with you on the first point about the other poster's comparison, but you seem to be still missing that in actuality in most cases for anyone who doesn't pay full retail that Apple RAM upgrade prices are higher than others because Apple typically does not "allow" retailers that discount to stock higher RAM versions of certain models. So in those cases it is fair to compare the price difference in discounted 8GB versions to the only place you can get 16GB versions.
8GB is 8GB, there is no magical way around this, this amount is not enough in 2023, don't ever dare call a machine professional with that puny amount as it's not enough. Even for a basic PC I'd be running 16GB minimum, for a gaming PC 32GB+, so 8GB is a joke.
Here's the memory usage of an 8Gb M1 Mac, with the user complaining that "things were getting a bit sluggish".
It's handling nearly 3x as much data as it has RAM for. And it's getting "a bit sluggish".
It's handling nearly 3x as much data as it has RAM for. And it's getting "a bit sluggish".
Apple can easily quash this 'issue' by pricing the RAM upgrade more fairly.
Nonsense. They need to stop being cheap and spend the $15 to add 8GB of RAM to their expensive low end models
Exactly. On the iMac they use pixel compression, so it's clearly equivalent to a 48" Dell monitor.
BTW, I currently have only a browser with 2 tabs open and Thunderbird running on my M2 Pro Mini, and Activity Monitor shows "memory used: 8.25GB". On an 8GB model it would already be swapping.