Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

HVDynamo

macrumors 6502a
Feb 21, 2011
712
1,089
Minnesota
Not entirely true. I have 192GB of RAM on my M2 Ultra system and was able to regularly reproduce a bug with Davinci Resolve where I was doing the most basic of edits on a 1080p video caused red memory pressure.
I don’t think that changes anything I said though. Yes some bugs can cause issues like that to happen no matter what, but then that’s not a good representation of the issue In that one case. It’s just a bug that should be fixed.
 

oink_oink

macrumors newbie
Jun 22, 2022
15
58
Further evidence of what most already know--that Cook is a rather contemptible money-grubber who systematically and deliberately bakes planned obsolescence into his products.

It is gratifying to see that Cook's Vision Pro and "Fine Woven" products are a BIG FLOP! More please!
 

sw1tcher

macrumors 603
Jan 6, 2004
5,487
19,240
iPhone 14 upped the memory to 6GB/128GB storage

You know what else iPhone 14 did? Reuse previous A-generation chips.

there's a lot of nuance into pricing such as reusing designs, camera modules, screens, removing included accessories, making packaging smaller, etc to save on budget to allow for more room in other areas in the product so these comparison are pointless. to say XYZ device did one particular thing, therefore ABC device should be able to do the exact thing and ignore everything else about the product is ridiculous lmao
I'm aware the iPhone 14 reused the previous A-series chip (from the iPhone 13 Pro and 13 Pro Max), not from the iPhone 12... just like how the iPhone 15 reused the A-series chip from the iPhone 14 Pro and 14 Pro Max.

The point is shouldn't the iPhone 15 (or even the iPhone 14) have a higher starting price than the iPhone 12 due to improved A-series chip, more memory, and more storage? Based on your explanation of rising memory prices...


and unified memory architecture, the answer should be yes. But it doesn't.


there's a lot of nuance into pricing such as reusing designs, camera modules, screens, removing included accessories, making packaging smaller, etc to save on budget to allow for more room in other areas in the product so these comparison are pointless. to say XYZ device did one particular thing, therefore ABC device should be able to do the exact thing and ignore everything else about the product is ridiculous lmao
Apple reuses the same design, camera modules, and screens on MacBooks more often/for longer than they do on iPhones. Yet, same 8GB memory for years and years and years.


Camera quality, especially in the MacBook Air, has been something that Mac owners have complained about for years now. Apple has gone through many generations of the MacBook Air without adding any new camera hardware.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: ric22

MonkeySpank158

macrumors member
Feb 11, 2022
65
206
For my uses, the M1 MacBook Air base model (8GB RAM, 256 GB Storage) was absolutely fine. I loved that little guy. I upgraded to an M1 Pro MBP 16" model (16GB, 512GB) simply for a larger screen to work on, since I WFH and dont always want to sit at my desk to work, hence the need/want for a bigger screen. But honestly, the base model M1 Air suited me just fine. Granted, I dont do video or graphic editing or anything super intensive, but I would be willing to bet that there are quite a bit of people similar to me. So honestly, I dont see the fuss. If somebody needs more, they will pay for more, but I believe most users really will be fine with 8GB of RAM with the Apple SoC. I can understand people maybe wanting a bigger hard drive, but for me I pay for extra cloud storage, and save everything there so I can easily access it from my phone, iPad, or MB.
 

ric22

macrumors 68020
Mar 8, 2022
2,033
1,932
It's also been a while since they updated base storage
This. 👍🏼 I find the storage situation more offensive considering how incredibly cheap storage is to buy in bulk. Remarkably cheap! But then there will always be someone that pops up with the tired "well I don't use that much anyway, so I don't want the amount to increase and push the price I pay up." 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️
 
  • Like
Reactions: Morod and Unami

Unami

macrumors 65816
Jul 27, 2010
1,359
1,564
Austria
It's pretty safe to say that macs will also get a baseline RAM update soon. That's one thing where I hope AI will succeed - by needing more RAM.

Maybe this will even affect storage and Apple will be forced to offer something more price-adequate as well.
 
Last edited:

Oblivious.Robot

macrumors 6502a
Sep 15, 2014
819
2,217
Tim has penny pinched the consumers dry with every trick in the book, and now that there isn’t anymore of Steve’s vision board to copy from, we’re getting cancellation from car projects to great tech with no usage AVP failing.

Hopefully he announces his retirement before the stock bleeds quicker than it ever rose.
 

BrianM_CAN

macrumors member
Jan 10, 2018
52
51
Canada
I work for a place that is completely fine with the majority of their purchased computers only coming with 8 GB of ram, and 256 GB storage... but those are specific one app usage systems for exhibit purposes, and even the largest storage usage is about 50 GB for over 98% of the systems used for these.

For our staff systems in the past 6 years (since it became an option in the MacBook Air in 2018), we always order with minimum 16 GB of ram, and it's getting more and more rare that 256 GB is enough storage for even the light usage users. It really is time to at least change the ram to 16 GB to start. And with such a rich system for creating content (GarageBand & iMovie being included for example), 512 GB should be the minimum.

(We have close to 150 systems for exhibits vs about 25 for staff, so we are one of the rare cases where it likely saves us money having that 8/256 option instead of Apple likely charging slightly more if they made the change to a 16/512 base model, I'd still rather they bump up the minimum)
 

bradman83

macrumors 6502a
Oct 29, 2020
959
2,377
Buffalo, NY
Let’s not forget that the GPU eats up some of that 8GB, so you probably have closer to 6GB for the system.

Congratulations, you bought into Apples marketing. The RAM chips are the same. Yes, the RAM is faster because it is placed close to the CPU making it easier to clock faster without errors on the signal lines. But it's still the same memory chips at the end of the day. The Unified bit is just that it's placed on the same package as the CPU. That's it. It's "unified" with the CPU. Faster RAM is better, but faster RAM does not make up for lack in capacity.
The "Unified" in Unified Memory is actually that the GPU and CPU can work out of the same memory pool. This is different than the shared memory on Intel Macs and Windows based systems where an integrated GPU would slice off a section of system memory to use as VRAM (effectively reducing your available system memory).

Let's say you're running a GPU-accelerated filter on an image in Photoshop. In a traditional setup the image data would have to be copied into VRAM, the action applied, and copied back into system memory. That doesn't happen under unified memory, the data stays in one place and both the CPU, GPU, and NPU can work on it at the same time.

So under Apple Silicon the concept of VRAM is completely different; the majority of the memory pool can technically be VRAM but it can simultaneously be system RAM if the data occupying that space is utilized by both the CPU and GPU. In a traditional setup the GPU is constrained by whatever VRAM is available to it.

Now to be clear unified memory is mostly a speed advantage - not having to copy data between memory pools speeds up operations - and less of a capacity efficiency advantage. Is there some efficiency? Sure, but it's not going to be enough to be earth shattering and its certainly not enough to support Apple's claim that 8GB on Apple Silicon is equivalent to 16GB on Windows. 8GB will still get chewed up by a large multi-layer file in Photoshop.
 

Asbow

macrumors regular
Aug 17, 2020
182
343
Apple doesn't use DDR RAM anymore. M series computers use unified memory which typically = twice the performance of DDR. That's something that Apple explained at the release of the original M1 but tech sites still like to pretend that unified memory and DDR memory are the same thing.
Apple does use DDR. It uses LPDDR5. Unified is just an Apple marketing term for dynamic memory allocation. It can allocate banks to both the CPU and GPU. The Intel Core 5s that Apple used system memory for the GPU except it wasn’t dynamic. The RAM Apple uses doesn’t hold a candle to GDDR6 which the PS5 and XBox use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ric22

Populus

macrumors 601
Aug 24, 2012
4,840
7,136
Spain, Europe
Apple does use DDR. It uses LPDDR5. Unified is just an Apple marketing term for dynamic memory allocation. It can allocate banks to both the CPU and GPU. The Intel Core 5s that Apple used system memory for the GPU except it wasn’t dynamic. The RAM Apple uses doesn’t hold a candle to GDDR6 which the PS5 and XBox use.
Talking about LPDDR6 RAM… when do you expect Apple to jump into that memory type? M4? M5? M6?
 

Jamie0003

macrumors 65816
Apr 17, 2009
1,068
741
Norfolk, UK
or...you know... a more sensible reason: plenty of consumers became fine with the base ram

and the fact that unified memory costs more than standard memory to implement

and you know...combatting sky rocketing prices...

and flash storage became fast enough for swap....

and so on..

but go ahead, write confirmation bias so that we can feel good about hating on Tim Cook, mr David Schaub
Lmao orrrrrr….apple are tight arses
 

aParkerMusic

macrumors 6502
Dec 20, 2021
338
845
Could it be because the RAM capacity increase over time is also logarithmic until it completely stops? This is a basic example of where you'd use a logarithmic scale. If you'd use a normal scale the line would basically be flat and then shoot straight up in 2011, then continue flat again.

---

There is no denying that continuing the growth rate as it was prior to 2011 would have been nonsensical... However, it completely grinding to a halt is equally stupid, especially for the prices Apple charges. The 8GB options do not exist to be actually usable, they're just there for the marketing. Most high-end phones have long ago surpassed Apple's baseline RAM capacity, which is genuinely ridiculous (on both sides, to be entirely honest) and now that even the iPhone is catching up to it, it really is time for Apple to scratch themselves behind the ears here. Most of its competitors no longer offer 8 GB variants of their high-end devices anymore either (and hell, they usually have separate VRAM too). 8GB is just not acceptable anymore.
All the people happily using Macs with 8GB of RAM would disagree with you that they are not usable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hans1972 and jz0309

mrhick01

macrumors 6502
Sep 22, 2008
491
324
I'll say it:

Tim Cook generating millions of computers with only 8GB of RAM that can't be upgraded makes Apple the biggest polluter of e-waste on the planet.

It is indefensible.
Where's the evidence that these products are being thrown away and turning up in African landfills?

Apple does have a program where they take in old hardware to be dismantled, right?
 

trip1ex

macrumors 68030
Jan 10, 2008
2,961
1,515
So you don’t have a valid argument against what I said then. If you weren’t being sarcastic, then your post is simply wrong.
I don't need an argument against it because I don't disagree there is 1 pc game that has a problem with 8gb of RAM.

You however don't understand what you replied to and have chosen to remain that way.
 

trip1ex

macrumors 68030
Jan 10, 2008
2,961
1,515
RAM share among Steam Users from March 2024

8gb 45%
16gb 35%


I had 16gb in my gaming pc in ~2011 when Sandy Bridge (Intel cpus) came out. Yet 45% of Steam users have only 8gb RAM. Ram use has plateaued. Whether you desire Apple to sell you more RAM for less money or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hans1972 and throAU

coolfactor

macrumors 604
Jul 29, 2002
7,126
9,873
Vancouver, BC
It's strange that nothing changed with the 8 GB after he took over as CEO.

Now that I take a second look, that's actually crazy! 8GB is RAM has always felt like double what was needed, for basic needs. My 2013 MacBook Air only had 4GB, and that lasted me 8 years, and still runs well enough today. My current 2021 MacBook Air has 8GB and it's more than enough for my daily needs.

Maybe 8GB is the sweet spot for the base model, and to raise that arbitrarily would just be a waste for many customers.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Howard2k and ric22

DavidSchaub

macrumors 6502
Jun 16, 2016
425
481
Just to be clear.

I couldn't ignore the correlation to Tim Cook being CEO, but I absolutely respect Tim Cook.

I think he is exceptionally good at his job, and I'm sure he has ample proof that his decisions have been very good for Apple and have made Apple a ton of money.

While I personally feel that Apple should use its resources to grow the Mac market by being more competitive and I think Apple should either: increase the base SKU RAM (12GB would been a big improvement) or decrease their margins on their "8GB more RAM" BTO upgrade; I cannot say that Apple or Tim cook has done anything wrong.

As with all things, there are always tradeoffs.
 

1129846

Cancelled
Mar 25, 2021
528
988
What dishonest graphs. Why is the X-Axis logarithmic? 🤦🏻‍♂️
It not so dishonest as ram tends to jump in doubling ammounts due to the base 2 nature of computers.

If anything it shows what type of mind set Tim has that matches is business background. It is a way to increase money and it was a super easy way to get away with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: parfait
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.