Utmost ******** I‘ve ever read. Silicon RAM configs need MORE RAM than a x86 equivalent, since it also feeds the gpu ram. I’ve got a 14“ w 16GB which constantly runs out of memory when I apply certain effects in FCPX. Avid, as an example, needs 32GB on a silicon MacBook and o run per sys recs.. This statements is a simple lie.
Following the unveiling of new MacBook Pro models last week, Apple surprised some with the introduction of a base 14-inch MacBook Pro with M3 chip, which replaced the discontinued M2 13-inch MacBook Pro in Apple's Mac lineup.
Starting at $1,599, the 14-inch M3 MacBook Pro comes with 8GB of unified memory. That makes it $300 more expensive than the $1,299 starting price of the now-discontinued M2 13-inch MacBook Pro with 8GB. Users can opt for 16GB or 24GB at checkout, but these configuration options cost an extra $200 and $400 at purchase, respectively, and cannot be upgraded at a later date because of Apple's unified memory architecture.
This has left Apple open to criticism from users who argue that 8GB is not a sufficient amount of RAM for most creative professional workflows, and that 16GB should be the bare minimum for a machine that is marketed as "Pro," rather than an additional several hundred dollar outlay.
In a recent interview with Chinese ML engineer and content creator Lin YilYi, Apple's VP of worldwide product marketing Bob Borchers has directly responded to this criticism. After YilYi characterized the base M3 MacBook Pro coming with 8GB of RAM as the "one major concern" of prospective buyers, Borchers replied:
While the 14-inch MacBook Pro with 8GB of unified memory is $300 more expensive than the M2 13-inch MacBook Pro it replaces, there are a number of other benefits worth considering aside from the faster processor, such as the larger, brighter mini-LED Liquid Retina XDR display, support for 120Hz ProMotion refresh rates, and better battery life. Other improvements include additional ports, a better 1080p FaceTime HD camera, a six-speaker sound system, Wi-Fi 6E support, and Bluetooth 5.3.
What do you think about the 8GB of unified memory supplied in the base configuration of M3 MacBook Pro? Does it suit your requirements, or make the "Pro" machine grossly underpowered for your use case? Let us know in the comments.
Article Link: 8GB RAM on M3 MacBook Pro 'Analogous to 16GB' on PCs, Claims Apple
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
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
Work sets you free.
8GB > 16GB
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
Work sets you free.
8GB > 16GB
But how much would it cost for a user to add an extra 8Gb on that system? How much would it be for the Mac?
For windows an extra 32Gb costs around $70. The cost to Apple for 16Gb base would be negligible. Yes the cost of upgrading unified memory is more expensive, by virtue of it being unified, but if the base configuration was 16Gb that would incur minimal cost to Apple, more than offset in my opinion by new Mac users and at least give some credence to Apple's intention to pursue gaming, let alone the 'pro' tag.
Personally I believe Apple are shooting themselves in both feet. Apple like to have the moral high ground and Apple devices command a premium for multiple reasons, but they are losing that in the PR battle over base configurations.
if they cut the 8Gb configuration out completely it would save money on removing that base configuration, and if they bumped the price by $25 to make it a 16Gb configuration, it would be a PR coup over many of the Windows machines, but where comparing easily and cheaply upgradeable RAM on a windows machine to a non upgradeable Mac seems rather futile.
Best for Apple to seize the opportunity to remove 8Gb as base configuration and point to the difference as a plus, rather than being considered a minus as it is now.
Of course unified memory is not as easily upgradeable, but that makes the case even stronger for increasing the baseline memory as the cost to do it by removing one configuration is negligible.
Apple seem to be slipping in playing the PR game, and whilst their sales and profits are still high perhaps encouraging more buyers with 16Gb base would improve that.
Historically iPhones had less RAM than Android.
And yet iPhones had better performance.
Seeming Apple Silicon are derived from iPhone chips then Apple saying 8GB on macOS on Apple Silicon is equivalent to Windows on x86 then I'd believe them.
And yet iPhones had better performance.
Seeming Apple Silicon are derived from iPhone chips then Apple saying 8GB on macOS on Apple Silicon is equivalent to Windows on x86 then I'd believe them.
Apple seems to forget that their unified memory architecture means that their GPU is also sharing that 8GB memory. On windows systems with discrete gpus, the GPU's ram is there in addition to the main system ram. Even if their memory use was more efficient, which is dubious at best, the minute the user starts doing a more graphics-intensive workload, memory will start to become an issue.
It's hard not to be cynical and see it as an upsell tactic.
It's hard not to be cynical and see it as an upsell tactic.
Whatever the argument behind that comparison is, 8GB isn't enough for a Mac. Unless you *only* use Apple's apps. If you prefer Chrome over Safari, or have to use Office because the entire company uses it, you need at least 16GB.
I fell for this argument when I bought my 13" M1 MBP and the CPU is absolutely great. But the 8GB has made me want to upgrade since day one.
I fell for this argument when I bought my 13" M1 MBP and the CPU is absolutely great. But the 8GB has made me want to upgrade since day one.
And the iphone comes now with 8GB of RAM. Don't you think a full desktop OS needs more RAM than your phone in your pocket?
There is a difference between "Macs are completely unusable with only 8gb ram" and "I would like Apple to give me more ram for free just because". The majority of arguments I see here seem to tend towards the latter.
I personally feel this issue is way overblown here, and the majority of users outside of this forum really don't care about the specs that come with their laptop so long as it offers great performance and long battery life. The reality is that most users are adequately served with 8gb ram.
Windows PC OEMs can only include more ram to make up for their having little control over the OS (similar to android smartphones). Apple controls the hardware, the processor, as well as the underlying OS, so I am not really worried about their ability to integrate everything together and eke out comparable or even superior performance despite less specs on paper.
There is too much focus on specs and not enough on the user experience.
I am pointing out the efficiencies of Apple OSes. If I am not mistaken the S23 Ultra & Pixel 8 Pro has 12GB RAM?
Personally? I'd rather Apple maintains the standard SKUs at the current MSRP but 2x LPDDR5T 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.
Indeed, the GPU in my 16” M1 Max MBP has been pulling 21GB VRAM in some instances.
Yeah, my lying eyes and 2500 users are dumber than a predatory company’s marketing team. Shoot.
Do you know if the GPU VRAM is ever compressed? I suspect that it isn't, I ran the Cinebench 2024 GPU test yesterday and the "wired memory" shot up to 11GB.
Let me guess. You’ve never owned an 8GB Apple Silicon Mac. I find it funny there was one poster who thought it was bad that people defending 8GB didn’t own it, but I guarantee a lot of people here complaining have never once owned an 8GB Mac.
Here’s a nice video from Brandon Butch who put an 8GB M3 MBP through its paces with the conclusion that people should NOT upgrade the RAM because it ran so well with 40 Safari tabs, Final Cut rendering in the background, and other apps also running. This video was published less than a day ago.
That’s true.
But it is also true that Apple builds a ladder, aggressively limiting the specs of base devices and pushing the price of high end configurations, so most of the people will buy something in between. And’s that’s how they grow and hide inflation.
If 8Gb = 16GB
Then 16GB = 32GB
...
Then Inf = 2 x Inf
But 2 x Inf = Inf
Thus
Inf = Inf
And thus
8GB = 8GB
I believe Apple here - if you just use your machine for light productivity.
And I think that that is what the base level M3 is really meant for.
I.e. a company issued fancy 'status' machine for managers, who are just going to run MS Office and Keynote on it, plus a few web pages.
Maybe people doing some light front end web dev and editing short videos for socials would be OK with these 8GB machines.
Anything more than the above use cases, I have a hard time believing that 8GB will really be enough.
And I think that that is what the base level M3 is really meant for.
I.e. a company issued fancy 'status' machine for managers, who are just going to run MS Office and Keynote on it, plus a few web pages.
Maybe people doing some light front end web dev and editing short videos for socials would be OK with these 8GB machines.
Anything more than the above use cases, I have a hard time believing that 8GB will really be enough.