Be that as it may, we're talking, what, 300 MiB? (5000x2000 pixels times three colors times ten bit per color.) That doesn't factor in that much either way.
Isn't that just an algorithm that runs on the regular memory?
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
Be that as it may, we're talking, what, 300 MiB? (5000x2000 pixels times three colors times ten bit per color.) That doesn't factor in that much either way.
Isn't that just an algorithm that runs on the regular memory?
So you couldn't find those mythic discounted custom macs, right?
I was comparing real prices you can buy machines for in retail today. MSRP prices do not matter.
Apple doesn’t care if you buy it from Amazon or from them. Now you’re just playing games. The standard Apple upgrade price is $200 while MS’s is the same for storage and higher for RAM. Amazon puts all sorts of things on sale, including Apple and MS products. I picked up a M1 Pro MBP more than a year ago that wasn’t a base version for more than $500 off at Amazon, but that’s irrelevant because that’s a sale price. I’m not using that sale price to prove anything.
There's a reason x86 notebooks also ship with 8GB options still.
The majority of Mac laptop users are office workers who use web apps in the cloud. They don't need 16GB of ram. They're not doing anything that even touches that much memory footprint.
Maybe in 2030 that will change but not right now. If you say they should all be installing more memory then you're just increasing costs on large companies with many laptops and you will also create a situation where ram prices increase for the rest of us.
“8GB ought to be enough for anyone” - Bill Apple
YouTuber Luke Miani offers up some real-world testing of the 8GB M3 MBP vs M3 Pro and M2 for Blender, Tomb Raider and FCP (starting around the 7:00 mark) along with several benchmark tests...
Base model 14" M3 MacBook Pro: NOT what I expected AT ALL - YouTube
...Disclaimer: link provided for educational purposes only, I have zero affiliation.
Base model 14" M3 MacBook Pro: NOT what I expected AT ALL - YouTube
...Disclaimer: link provided for educational purposes only, I have zero affiliation.
Well said. Things have changed. Memory bandwidth has changed, RAM speeds haves changed, SSD’s are a game changer. Amazing how many people are having good results in an entry level MacBook Air. Pro’s probably shouldn’t buy base models.
I have the same two machines. What I've found is that for "most" basic tasks the performance is the same. However there are certain tasks where I get lag on the MBA that I don't doing the same thing on the MBP. One such example I ran into last year was doing my parents taxes. I had Numbers, TurboTax, Preview and numerous Safari tabs open and switching back in forth. The thing is I know it is memory based lag vs number of CPU/GPU lag as if I put my MBP into low power mode it is still less lag.
If you only need 8 go if ram get the base MacBook Air. It’s lighter and we’ll suit you the same. If you need the fan in the MacBook Pro then you need more than 8. I have a MacBook Pro 16in with 16gb of ram and an 8gb of ram MacBook Air. It’s true they push the 8gb of ram well. It’s still fast but I run into some ram issues on the MacBook Air all the time and I swap heavily and that’s my laptop for checking email on the go. It’s not really a heavy use device. I honestly wouldn’t buy a computer with less than 16gb of ram at this point.
This is such a stupid statement from apple. They should be ashamed.
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
people went went along with that lie when m1 came out but since then we know better. Esp for pro use absolutely not.
Moments like this make me question using Apple products. Such disrespect to our intelligence. Unfortunately there aren’t a lot of good alternatives.
PC comparisons on base price are difficult - its almost impossible to choose a like-for-like comparison, especially with the processor and screen resolution, but the upgrades tend to be a lot cheaper than Apple, even for comparable LPDDR RAM and SSD.
There are exceptions - from what I can tell, Microsoft Surface PCs are about the most expensive out there and, sometimes, offer even less bang-per-buck than Apple (I did actually have a Microsoft Surface Book briefly and, yeah, it was the closest thing to an Apple-like experience - unfortunately it was also the closest thing to Apple-like money and helpfully bricked itself within the 30-day no-quibble return period).
Most other brands are a lot cheaper.
Looking at UK prices, with more "premium" machines like Dell XPS and Lenovo ThinkPad, spending £1200 or so usually gets you 16GB RAM or 512GB SSD and sometimes both - and the upgrade prices are far less (On a 256GB SSD machine, Lenovo want £80 for an upgrade to a 'performance' 1TB SSD) - while on a £3000 ThinkPad with "only" 16/512 the upgrade to 32/1TB costs £100.
Theres a Dell XPS 13 Plus laptop for £1099 with 8/512 - probably not as powerful as an MBA but upgrading to 16GB and 1TB only costs £150 total (and thats with LPDDR5 RAM - the SSD is PCIe but may not be the fastest).
Bottom line - machines like the small iMac have been shipping with 8GB RAM since about 2015. Apple have been charging £200-per-8GB for RAM upgrades for a similar amount of time, even when they were just bog-standard Micron SODIMMs that you could get for a fraction of the price elsewhere. RAM and SSD just aren't that expensive these days and although 8GB/256GB might work specifying a system with 16GB/1TB should only add about $100 to the price (including a reasonable profit margin) - less is "spoiling the ship for a ha'pworth of tar". Actually, I suspect the extra logistics cost to Apple of manufacturing and distributing all those permutations of 8GB RAM and 256/512GB HDs is only justified by the incom from those ridiculously high upgrade prices.
You’re trying to compare regular prices to sale prices, but somehow sale prices don’t matter if it’s Apple. And what the heck does custom versus stock have to do with anything? The prices I posted on MS’s page were stock, showing you the prices. The MS page was not an unlimited build your own, but a choice of three stock configurations, clearly listing the prices. Again, the main point is that just about everyone has 8/256 base configurations. If you need more, buy more. I did and didn’t complain because I know I’m not a base model type of user. A base model type of user doesn’t want to pay for more than he needs. Yes, it’s expensive to upgrade, but that’s what the market will bear, and not just for Apple.
There's more buffers than just color. You kind of forget Z, stencils, off-screen rendering targets owning their own framebuffers... usually on 8Gb MBA you will always see around 1.1Gb unswappable, part of it is GPU dedicated VRAM. Probably some part of WindowServer process RAM too, cause it's increasing when you open windows/add displays.
Idk how to answer this question because there's no regular memory. If you compare to integrated GPUs, M can use less RAM compared to older CPUs, not so much against e.g. AMD APUs. If you compare to CPU with external GPU, M will always use more RAM.
8GB of Apple Silicon UMA ram are equal to 16GB on others platforms: Apple marketing blackmagic!! 😂😂
No, Apple prices do matter, that's why I've asked you to find and show me where in retail I can buy custom 16Gb mbp for +$25 increase. You couldn't. So the argument stays - you can buy MS machines today for +$23 per RAM increase, you can't buy MBPs on these terms.
You are simply trying to find excuses to not admit you were wrong.
You are missing the point that Amazon doesn't/can't carry the 16GB versions of certain machines (like the MBA, iMac, non pro Mini and the former 13" MBP) but does for MS products. So yes in MS and Apple charge about the same for upgrades on THEIR sites for the full retail price, but the reality is with MS you have a choice of where to buy those 16GB versions and Apple you really don't. And in that case the price difference is much smaller. In fact an example I posted the other day the price difference between a 16GB 15" MBA through Apple and the same 15" MBA but with 8GB through Costco was $450!
Why slow down such a great little machine. Get 16gigs and it'll be brilliant future-proof piece of tech.
If it's in the WindowServer process, it's not dedicated VRAM at all.
"Dedicated" in this context is physically separate chips. That's not the case here. Sure, the GPU cores probably have their own cache hierarchy, but that's not RAM.
Seriously, I am getting tired of Apple just lying straight to our faces. There’s spin and then there’s just being ridiculous. They have been worse about it in the last year than they ever have been. To me it started with “you no longer have to deal with a SIM card!” Ever since then it has gone from spin to straight up lying about math.
Even if there is a very small nugget of truth* in their claims, I don't know why Apple chooses to die on this particular hill.
Well, I guess I do know why... protecting their margins.
*which is to say, Apple Silicon machines run surprisingly well on 8 GB, but it's not equivalent to 16 GB
Well, I guess I do know why... protecting their margins.
*which is to say, Apple Silicon machines run surprisingly well on 8 GB, but it's not equivalent to 16 GB
Now this is the way to debate an issue, with good, solid information. Thank you.
I would point out that Apple’s only been selling Apple Silicon Macs for three years. As people here recognize, 8GB in Windows is inferior to 8GB in AS, so going back to 2015 only points out that Apple’s offer of 8GB were for Intel machines up until late 2020. However, WIndows laptop manufacturers are also having base units of 8/256 today, which should be considered even more egregious. Seems to me, Apple is just going with what everyone else is doing, which means they are charging market prices. I also think they’re dreadfully expensive, but there are very few that aren’t.
The bottom line is that Apple’s base specs are very similar, if not identical, to a lot of the major Windows computer makers. While their upgrades are near the top, but not at the top, of upgrade prices, they are also not outside the bounds of normal market prices.
That's just regular RAM. I have no idea what you mean by "dedicated" in this context.
Sticking with 8GB is like continuing to sell the 13" MBP long after the touchbar was officially dead. It saves Apple a few dollars at the cost of selling hardware which is going to be obsolete much sooner.
Apple is a high-end premium brand, and I feel stuff like this has a genuine risk of damaging that brand. They can afford to take a slight hit on margins if it means selling more Macs, and having base models that everyone would enthusiastically recommend without caveats.
Apple is a high-end premium brand, and I feel stuff like this has a genuine risk of damaging that brand. They can afford to take a slight hit on margins if it means selling more Macs, and having base models that everyone would enthusiastically recommend without caveats.