8GB RAM on M3 MacBook Pro 'Analogous to 16GB' on PCs, Claims Apple

[tobybrut]

They don't need to back it up with any evidence or testing. There are people defending them just on their word.

No, not their word. It’s knowing professionals who don’t need 16GB or more than 256GB drives. in my profession that configuration would be totally useless to me. For my wife as a business executive, it would fit perfectly. I simply recognize not all pro’s needs match my own. That’s why there are so many options and configurations to choose from. You don’t think the M3 base model is enough, don’t get that one. Get one that matches what you need and let other people have what they need without forcing them to pay for stuff they don’t want. Say Apple bumped up the base spec to 16/512 from its current 8/512 and raised the base price by $200. There you go. They did just that on the iPhone 15 Pro Max by boosting minimum storage to 256GB and raised the price accordingly.

Here’s another example with my wife. I gave her my hand-me-down 11” iPad Pro with 1TB of storage when hers broke, figuring why not? She could probably use it. Six months later while I was checking on an issue with her iPad, I noticed the amount of that storage she was using… 53GB… out of 1TB. What a waste. When I got her a replacement later (she breaks her iPads a lot for some reason), I get her a 128GB version. This is why just about every computer manufacturer has base specs of 8/256. She’s the type of person they are thinking of. So, no, I don’t have to take Apple’s word for it. I know someone very close to me who doesn’t need 16/512. She’s currently using less than half of her 256GB storage right now on her Mac, just a hair over 100GB.

 

[maxoakland]

I’d like to see some tests from the you tubers that prove this theory. Although regardless of the outcome - my macs have lasted 10 years so i‘d expect that out of my next mac and i just don’t see 8GB being able to last another decade. I think 16GB will be a push

There are dozens of tests on YouTube that disprove this theory

 

[Ethosik]

He should try using one of the Adobe programs once.

Not really a fair argument. My older smaller After Effects projects can work fine on 8GB (720p projects) but can still max out my 192GB of RAM system.

 

[pappl]

8GB RAM on M3 MacBook Pro 'Analogous to 16GB' on PCs?​

​

No, it's not.​

16GB RAM costs for PC are 50 Euro / US-Dollar​

​

Apple: Stop BS'ing customers!​

 

[tobybrut]

Please re-read again my reply. Don’t be too emotional. My concern is on Apple.

Oh, i didn’t take offense. I know you weren’t intending anything bad. I just didn’t agree with your claim you weren’t deciding who was pro or who wasn’t by deciding what computer would be best for her without knowing her requirements.

 

[turbineseaplane]

World class gaslighting here

As brazen as it gets

 

[leman]

You sure about that?

From https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/apple-dynamic-caching-explained/

Yes, I am sure about that. The journalist there doesn't understand what they are talking about and confuses local memory for RAM. Local memory = on-die GPU memory (GPU register cache, GPU shader stack, scratchpad, thread-group memory etc.). While it is possible that some system RAM is allocated to support some shader execution, it is not the primary focus of the feature.

Itt does, actually. It’s a RAM-saving feature. Normally, graphics require a pre-set buffer in RAM equal to the maximum amount it needs. Say, as an example, a video can use anywhere from 2MB-2GB worth of RAM depending on how complicated the individual frame is within the video. The computer has to allocate the full 2GB to accommodate that video for the entire duration of that video playing. With dynamic caching, it figures out on the fly how much RAM is needed and will allocate anywhere from that 2MB-2GB worth of RAM at the time it’s needed and take it away when it’s not needed. Because it’s done in hardware, it’ll be very fast. When the next frame’s needs go down, so does the allocation. That extra RAM is freed up for other things, while under the old standard method, that 2GB of RAM is mostly left empty except for the most extreme parts of the video and goes to waste.

So yeah, it has everything to do with RAM usage, especially since the CPU shares RAM with the GPU. That CPU is more than happy to use that RAM that was freed up. This makes the RAM go further and improves efficiency.

I don't even know where to start. First, of all, you are talking to the person who has verified the presence of Dynamic Caching on the A17 GPU, so I know a thing or two about it. Second, Dynamic Caching has to do with lazy allocation of on-GPU resources, not system RAM. Third, it is not possible to allocate system RAM from a GPU shader (or if it is possible, Apple does not expose it to the developer, and it would require a round-trip to OS anyway, which is dead slow). You allocate the data buffer in the host application (on the CPU) and pass it to the GPU. So if you think you might need a 2GB scratchpad for your video application, you have to allocate the 2GB scratchpad, there is no way around it, Dynamic Caching or not.

If you want to know more about Dynamic Caching, please read this patent that describes the feature in detail, while also keeping in mind that we don't know how much of the patent Apple has actually implemented (I verified it for the register file usage, but threadgroup memory and stack memory is likely lazily managed as well):

US20210271606A1 - On-demand Memory Allocation - Google Patents

Techniques are disclosed relating to dynamically allocating and mapping private memory for requesting circuitry. Disclosed circuitry may receive a private address and translate the private address to a virtual address (which an MMU may then translate to physical address to actually access a...

patents.google.com

 

[mecloud]

On my new M3 Pro MBP with 36gb RAM, I just checked memory usage of just the Mac OS immediately after a reboot. It is 5.86gb. If this computer had only 8gb RAM, pretty much any real-world use would be causing a lot of swap file activity.

 

[redheeler]

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.

Remember the 5400 RPM hard drives in 21.5" iMacs? They were slow and obsolete from the moment they were unboxed.

Imagine paying a good chunk of money for a 4K iMac only to be greeted by that experience... I wonder what the return rate was like on those.

 

[ProfessionalFan]

World class gaslighting here

As brazen as it gets

And it is somehow working!

 

[sashavegas]

They just have freer bits in their memory, since they are from the best company in the world, not squeezed by the framework of other underproducers...

 

[ProfessionalFan]

Yes, I am sure about that. The journalist there doesn't understand what they are talking about a

What I posted contained a direct quote from Apple. So you are saying you know better than Apple in terms of how their self-proclaimed industry first product works?

That's rather interesting because you also defend their statement about 8GB being enough.

So do you know better than them or do you not?

 

[KevinN206]

I had an 8GB M1 Mac Mini and then an 8GB MacBook Air and both were perfectly usable. I even played games and used Parallels (windows virtual machine) to play older games. No noticeable issues. 8GB is still enough for someone who uses Safari/Office/Pixelmator, AKA almost all Mac users in reality, in my opinion.

Obviously if you run a photo studio or do some intense AI work or anything else where your computer is your livelihood 8GB would be stupid (just to stop the replies I see coming).

I think 8 GB is fine for the Mac mini and MBA, but it's an insult on the Pro 14 for $1600.

 

[Isamilis]

On my new M3 Pro MBP with 36gb RAM, I just checked memory usage of just the Mac OS immediately after a reboot. It is 5.86gb. If this computer had only 8gb RAM, pretty much any real-world use would be causing a lot of swap file activity.

I don’t it’s as simple as that. My M2 MBA has been 2 days running with 2 users logged in concurrently (typical usage, Safari, Edge, Netflix, Ms Word, PDF Expert), and physical memory used is 6.7GB.

 

[Motorola68000]

Posters should stop telling other posters what they can and can't do.

Posters can do what they like, but comparing apples with pears will not give an accurate comparison.

I note though from your posts you seem be happy to tell posters what they can and cannot do, but in the air of friendship I will rephrase my posts and add this addendum.

"May I humbly suggest posters consider the situation themselves and arrive at their own conclusion"

No offence intended more light hearted, but hope this helps your concerns.

 

[mecloud]

I don’t it’s as simple as that. My M2 MBA has been 2 days running with 2 users logged in concurrently (typical usage, Safari, Edge, Netflix, Ms Word, PDF Expert), and physical memory used is 6.7GB.

How much swap file use is Activity Monitor showing?

I’m aware that more CPU/GPU cores will, all other things equal, increase RAM usage. So if you repeated the same “check memory usage immediately after booting” I’m sure you‘d see somewhat less on your M2 MBA vs my M3 Pro MBP.

 

[daniesy]

What about the video memory? Doesn’t it eat out of the “unified” memory? LoL.

This is a typical apple response: trust us and our payed influencers; don’t think for yourself. They want to get away like always with selling inferior and overpriced specs on “pro” machines. This ain’t gonna fly.

Whoever claims that they’re right, and that indeed 8gb > 16gb, is delusional. While you might not feel the inferior specs if all you do is read emails and browse basic websites, for most professionals 32 GB it’s barely enough.

 

[jkmoses]

He should try using one of the Adobe programs once.

I use PhotoShop and Illustrator on a regular basis on an M1 iMac and it kicks the ass of my Intel MacBook Pro with 16GB RAM. Not a popular opinion but 8GB RAM is sufficient for apps like PhotoShop and Illustrator. Most people aren’t “power” users.

 

[brofkand]

That makes no sense at all.

 

[KevinN206]

I see no issue with this. The biggest mistake Apple makes is sticking with the ‘Pro’ name. Because it give certain pro’s the idea the machines are only for them. Unless you are rendering 4k video and creating dozens of photos a day, you are not allowed to buy a pro. Go to the Air line!

A pro could be anyone. Maybe they want or need the extra ports, or like the design better, or what ever.

Want 16gb or ram, buy it. Want 8gb of ram, buy it.

Every time these discussions come up I get so amazed by the elitist attitudes that come out of some people.

Don't even need to look at from the Pro name side. Paying $1600 for 8 GB is pure garbage especially when that dame 8 GB is sharing a chunk of system memory with the high resolution display at 120 Hz.

 

[ric22]

No, not their word. It’s knowing professionals who don’t need 16GB or more than 256GB drives. in my profession that configuration would be totally useless to me. For my wife as a business executive, it would fit perfectly. I simply recognize not all pro’s needs match my own. That’s why there are so many options and configurations to choose from. You don’t think the M3 base model is enough, don’t get that one. Get one that matches what you need and let other people have what they need without forcing them to pay for stuff they don’t want. Say Apple bumped up the base spec to 16/512 from its current 8/512 and raised the base price by $200. There you go. They did just that on the iPhone 15 Pro Max by boosting minimum storage to 256GB and raised the price accordingly.

Here’s another example with my wife. I gave her my hand-me-down 11” iPad Pro with 1TB of storage when hers broke, figuring why not? She could probably use it. Six months later while I was checking on an issue with her iPad, I noticed the amount of that storage she was using… 53GB… out of 1TB. What a waste. When I got her a replacement later (she breaks her iPads a lot for some reason), I get her a 128GB version. This is why just about every computer manufacturer has base specs of 8/256. She’s the type of person they are thinking of. So, no, I don’t have to take Apple’s word for it. I know someone very close to me who doesn’t need 16/512. She’s currently using less than half of her 256GB storage right now on her Mac, just a hair over 100GB.

They've kept the base storage the same for a decade, but now pay, what, 20% as much as they did for it? But you think it would make sense to raise the price for us to bump it up? 1tb now costs less than 256GB did when that was introduced in Macs...

 

[ProfessionalFan]

Most people aren’t “power” users.

Most people are buying the base Air for that reason, not a $1600 "pro" laptop. There should be no customer defending a 1600 buck "pro" machine having 8GB RAM but here we are.

 

[leman]

What I posted contained a direct quote from Apple. So you are saying you know better than Apple in terms of how their self-proclaimed industry first product works?

What you posted contained a misinterpretation of a direct quote from Apple. They are not talking about RAM. They are talking about local memory. I already explained what local memory means in the context of GPU. I also given you a link to the Apple patent describing this feature in detail and which types of memory it applies to. You are welcome to educate yourself on all these topics and if you still have questions afterwards I will be happy to answer them.

That's rather interesting because you also defend their statement about 8GB being enough.

You must be confusing me with somebody?

 

[KenkoPa]

I'd rather Apple maintains the standard SKUs at the current MSRP but 2x LPDDR5X RAM & 2x SSD sizes like so below:

​

Mac model​	MSRP​	Chip​	RAM (GB)​	SSD (TB)​	CPU (Core)​	GPU (Core)​
MBP 16"​	$2,499​	M3 Pro​	36​	1​	12​	18​
MBP 16"​	$2,899​	M3 Pro​	72​	1​	12​	18​
MBP 16"​	$3,499​	M3 Max​	72​	2​	14​	30​
MBP 16"​	$3,999​	M3 Max​	96​	2​	16​	40​
MBP 14"​	$1,599​	M3​	16​	1​	8​	10​
MBP 14"​	$1,799​	M3​	16​	2​	8​	10​
MBP 14"​	$1,999​	M3 Pro​	36​	1​	11​	14​
MBP 14"​	$2,399​	M3 Pro​	36​	2​	12​	18​
MBP 14"​	$3,199​	M3 Max​	72​	2​	14​	30​
iMac 24"​	$1,299​	M3​	16​	0.5​	8​	8​
iMac 24"​	$1,499​	M3​	16​	0.5​	8​	10​
iMac 24"​	$1,699​	M3​	16​	1​	8​	10​

If that was available I'd opt for a $2,499 MBP 16" M3 Pro 36GB RAM 1TB SSD. Sweet price point for a 3nm Mac laptop. That would last me until Oct 2033.

 

[Dionte]

Might as well just keep my M1 air, if it had 16 GB I would have been tempted to upgrade.