That's one thing I'll never do on a Mac, sorry, my mega desktop PC is for that. I can't see the games industry will ever get into mac
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.
My new MacBook Air m2 - 8gb is great
- Thread starter colonelbutt
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's one thing I'll never do on a Mac, sorry, my mega desktop PC is for that. I can't see the games industry will ever get into mac
I meant the 'generic you' in that sentence.
The only times I've personally found myself playing games on a Mac have been to kill time in the evenings on work trips, when I feel like something more interactive than reading or Netflix. I used to be a PC gamer, but now I hardly game at all.
Technically the M series Macs are up to the challenge of playing some decent games, but most that challenge the GPU are handicapped by the 8GB RAM. If someone doesn't own a second device like an iPad that they can bring with them- why not take advantage of the GPU now and again?
Essentially, I just take umbrage with your title and defence of 8GB. A lot of people in a lot of situations will be disappointed by it, and it's doing their tiny SSD's long term health no favours either (I know you keep computers for 2 years only, but that's out of the norm).
So basically, yeah, 8 GB is fine (eg acceptable, not great, obviously) in many situations, but owners would need to be mindful that should they wish to use more intensive programs or game at any point they will be disappointed. Also best they don't keep a ton of tabs open, or a lot of programs at once, and best to do clean installs of the OS every so often. A lot of caveats to 8GB, plus no crystal ball for the future = clearly not "great".
So basically, yeah, 8 GB is fine (eg acceptable, not great, obviously) in many situations, but owners would need to be mindful that should they wish to use more intensive programs or game at any point they will be disappointed. Also best they don't keep a ton of tabs open, or a lot of programs at once, and best to do clean installs of the OS every so often. A lot of caveats to 8GB, plus no crystal ball for the future = clearly not "great".
Last edited:
you are right, in principle the Mac could be a pretty cool games computer. Just no one seems to bother.
The other issue is about shared memory, as you point out. In the first place it seems a good idea, but then falls down over apple's pricing.
My PC has 32gb, but my Nvidia graphics card has 12gb. On the PC, the main memory is practically irrelevant for high powered games, it is only dependent on the graphics card. In fact a 8gb PC with a 12gb graphics card will run much much faster for 3d games then a 16gb PC with a 4gb graphics card.
Last edited:
Hmmm... Here we go!
I'll get some popcorn, sit back and watch thread deteriorate into WW3..!! 😆
Meanwhile - my 2 pence worth is:
I have a couple of M1 machines, one has 8gb memory (base 2020 MB Air) the other 16gb memory (maxed out 2021 iMac) - and in nearly three years I've never really been able to notice much difference in performance between them, no matter how hard I push them.
I multitask a LOT on both of them - though to be fair I'm not running any individual application which uses a lot of memory. I don't use photoshop, or edit videos etc... But both machines handle dozens of Safari / Firefox / Chrome tabs at once (I use all 3, often simultaneously) - and are clearly able to effortlessly swap memory back & forth to their SSDs. There is of course more swapping happening on the 8gb Air, but I can only tell by looking at Activity Monitor. So what does it matter? 🤷♀️
Both machines still report 100% SSD health ratings according to DriveDX.
In May my M1 iMac will be 3 years old - it's a lovely machine and I'll be keeping it for years to come. But so far it's questionable whether paying for the extra memory was money well spent!
I won't be changing my 8gb M1 Air anytime soon either - it never ceases to amaze me what it can do without breaking a sweat! Financially it was the better buy...
I'll get some popcorn, sit back and watch thread deteriorate into WW3..!! 😆
Meanwhile - my 2 pence worth is:
I have a couple of M1 machines, one has 8gb memory (base 2020 MB Air) the other 16gb memory (maxed out 2021 iMac) - and in nearly three years I've never really been able to notice much difference in performance between them, no matter how hard I push them.
I multitask a LOT on both of them - though to be fair I'm not running any individual application which uses a lot of memory. I don't use photoshop, or edit videos etc... But both machines handle dozens of Safari / Firefox / Chrome tabs at once (I use all 3, often simultaneously) - and are clearly able to effortlessly swap memory back & forth to their SSDs. There is of course more swapping happening on the 8gb Air, but I can only tell by looking at Activity Monitor. So what does it matter? 🤷♀️
Both machines still report 100% SSD health ratings according to DriveDX.
In May my M1 iMac will be 3 years old - it's a lovely machine and I'll be keeping it for years to come. But so far it's questionable whether paying for the extra memory was money well spent!
I won't be changing my 8gb M1 Air anytime soon either - it never ceases to amaze me what it can do without breaking a sweat! Financially it was the better buy...
I take umbrage with trying to switch users to pay more for things they don't need. 8gb was considered some time ago as plenty, and it is still plenty for web, office and light editing work. 16gb is better if you can get it for the same price, like anything, but I think for most Mac users it is not necessary. Also I don't buy into the "don't keep a lot of tabs open" - it doesn't seem to make any difference on my MacBook at all.
Remember, 99% of Mac buyers don't post in this forum. This forum is biased to geeks (like me) and people who are more demanding users. They will just buy laptops for web and office, and see great performance for years. My daughter had a 4gb, 128gb MacBook for years. She was a heavy user of office and streaming video. She only stopped using it when the hinge broke.
Also remember that I have a main PC and a few other laptops. The MacBook is not my main computer. It could never be, due to the games issue on Mac, but if I did use apple as my main computer, it would be a Mac studio, as I like the SD card and would also probably be the base model.
You might ask why I didn't get a windows laptop. I simply love the combination of build quality, weight, size and the gorgeous color matched screen on the MacBook. For the same price, I could have got a 16gb, 1tb, windows laptop, but I wouldn't have enjoyed using it so much.
Last edited:
Some people likes the MBA size and weight and don’t need the extra power of the M3 Pro chip or bigger screen and extra connections, but need more then 8GB RAM.
As for base models with 8GB RAM, maybe it’s fine for basic usage for the next 2-3 years, but longer than that it won't be sufficient for many people. That been said, Apple being Apple, they’ll continue milking the 8GB machines as long as they can before they’ll upgrade the base models to 16GB RAM.
Users shouldn't have to pay the extra. It's Apple saving the $12-20 the 8GB costs them. But I've lived with an M1 Mac for a couple of years, and would have paid the extra in hindsight- and I do nothing particularly strenuous with it! That was some time ago now I bought it... surely for someone buying now that same 8GB will seem worse in 4 years time... as others have pointed out, RAM requirements go up and not down. Especially with widespread adoption of locally run LLMs on the horizon.
Edit: I still think the M1 Air is an awesome laptop, to be clear, but as I'm always hitting the memory ceiling it just isn't ideal in the long run... especially for new buyers in 2024 that plan to hold onto it for 5 years +, as is standard with most Mac buyers according to Tim Cook.
Last edited:
Not enough for you doesn’t mean it’s not enough for everyone.
I completely agree with you!, the Air with m2 is an incredible little machine more than capable. I use it for office like work, photo editing and guitar playing assistant, incredible. The only thing I don't like as much that it is a finger magnet... my old mbp 2012 wasn't... but a small caveat!, enjoy!
It's a pity Apple has even made this a debate by sticking with 8GB as their gold standard for a decade. ☹️
Ultimately, giving the least demanding users a little extra headroom for the future wouldn't be a bad thing, especially not for premium devices at premium prices, that can never be upgraded after purchase.
If swap enables a machine to do what's asked of it effortlessly, smoothly and without "stuttering" - what does it matter if it's swapping? 🤷♀️
Sure, it'll shorten the lifespan of its SSD. But if that lifespan still comfortably exceeds the usable lifetime of any given machine before it becomes totally obsolete, or falls apart! Again - what does it matter? 🤷♀️
I think most of us only care that our Macs work reliably and do what we ask of them. It doesn't really matter how it achieves it... Does it?
(I think my MB Air actually runs on pixie dust!!! 🧚♀️ 😆)
That's a whole new debate 😅 How much harm swap does do depends on multiple factors, and the stuttering or lack there of, depends on what apps it is assisting.
The swap debate would then lead on to the debate about the ridiculously small SSD's, as bigger SSD's cope with it better.
In turn that leads onto how Apple began saving pennies on the base SSD's after M1, so they're also slower now...
I have m2 mba 8gb, use since launch day. The machine is flying, it’s not very limited like you describe as “little extra headroom” at all. My usage is not “the least demanding user” neither.
I am not supporter for Apple with 8gb ram (especially for MBP) too. But to describe that it’s very limited is not fact based.
No, it is very limited. It is fact based that a 16 GB has fewer limitations than 8 GB.
Remember the Apollo lunar lander and how its computer is commonly described as inferior to a modern calculator? This is often presented not to advocate that we continue using this extremely limited tech for the future but to marvel at how they did so much with so little computing power back then.
The reason that Apple is rightfully criticized for charging $200 USD for a mere 8 GB upgrade is that the production costs are increased by only a fraction of a percent. Were memory modules used the RAM would only cost about $3 per GB based on present market values... and yet Apple is charging customers $25 per GB. We're angry because Apple's greed is insatiable and on full display.
If the argument is that 8 GB is enough for casual users I won't argue with that, but those users don't realize how much more they could have gotten if Apple simply made 16 GB standard. Instead they went with the bare minimum for the sole purpose of either compelling the customer to buy a new computer <5 years down the road or to pay their extremely high upgrade costs. They redesigned their entire line as to not be upgradable for the sole purpose of price gouging.
Why is it impossible for some people here to simply accept that fact? Apple has the right to do that, but we have the right to complain! We should be complaining because most other manufacturers are upgrading to 16 GB standard while Apple would love nothing more than to go back to 4 GB and add another upgrade tier to make 8 GB a premium feature.
As a lifetime Apple user I'm now seriously considering abandoning Apple PC's and acclimating to Windows OS. I've been holding off buying a new computer until Apple increases the base specs to 16 GB RAM and 512 GB storage, but it's been years now. Now that they've made their entire line non upgradable I've come to realize this is to be the norm from now on. If I did buy a new Apple laptop, regardless of whether I pay their outrageous upgrade costs or not, they're just going to repeat this process again and again.
Not even going to try to talk to the RAM police in this thread, but kudos to you for getting something that matches your needs. I'm a dev and photographer so I usually get myself a very generously spec'd machine, but I had to live off of an 8GB 13" M1 MBP for a while while my regular laptop was getting repairs. It worked so well and I was so in love with the battery life I almost decided to keep that 8GB machine and sell my 32GB Intel when it came back.
I ran PHP Storm, Capture One Pro, Parallels, Office, a VM webserver, and the whole assortment of the usual accessory programs all at the same time without serious consequences on that 8GB M1. The only time that 8GB M1 had significant performance was when I ran Windows Update on the 2GB allocated to Windows over Parallels and even then it was mostly the Windows part that suffered.
I'm pretty sure someone with regular productivity needs can be just fine on 8GB for the foreseeable future. Perhaps you could eventually need to make compromises like closing out some programs to get full performance, but it's not going to be a brick.
When I last upgraded, I bought less RAM than I wanted just to continue the low RAM experiment over a more meaningful period. I'm on a 16GB M1 Pro now, which is a low spec for me. After 2 years, I haven't had anything more severe than a brief occasional stutter when under high load.
I can easily afford more so I'm going to return to a more generously spec'd machine the next time I upgrade, but I'm glad I experimented to address my curiosity if I really needed to keep buying more and more RAM just to keep up.
I ran PHP Storm, Capture One Pro, Parallels, Office, a VM webserver, and the whole assortment of the usual accessory programs all at the same time without serious consequences on that 8GB M1. The only time that 8GB M1 had significant performance was when I ran Windows Update on the 2GB allocated to Windows over Parallels and even then it was mostly the Windows part that suffered.
I'm pretty sure someone with regular productivity needs can be just fine on 8GB for the foreseeable future. Perhaps you could eventually need to make compromises like closing out some programs to get full performance, but it's not going to be a brick.
When I last upgraded, I bought less RAM than I wanted just to continue the low RAM experiment over a more meaningful period. I'm on a 16GB M1 Pro now, which is a low spec for me. After 2 years, I haven't had anything more severe than a brief occasional stutter when under high load.
I can easily afford more so I'm going to return to a more generously spec'd machine the next time I upgrade, but I'm glad I experimented to address my curiosity if I really needed to keep buying more and more RAM just to keep up.
To each his own opinion. I'm not in any way suggesting that 8 GB aren't impressive for what they can do. I am VERY impressed at how the M series, even with very limited RAM, can make a top tier intel MBP feel completely obsolete.
The reason that I and many others complain isn't that 8 GB doesn't satisfy most Apple customers, but rather that RAM and SSD's are simply so cheap that it doesn't make sense not to simply increase the base specs anyway. Apple spent a premium designing the best screens, keyboard, trackpad, batteries, and CPU/Graphics hardware.
And yet the ONLY things that they decided to skimp out on were comparatively cheap components which used to be upgradable hardware. And then they decided to slap on these outrageous upgrade costs because they know we can't install or upgrade them ourselves.
The reason that I and many others complain isn't that 8 GB doesn't satisfy most Apple customers, but rather that RAM and SSD's are simply so cheap that it doesn't make sense not to simply increase the base specs anyway. Apple spent a premium designing the best screens, keyboard, trackpad, batteries, and CPU/Graphics hardware.
And yet the ONLY things that they decided to skimp out on were comparatively cheap components which used to be upgradable hardware. And then they decided to slap on these outrageous upgrade costs because they know we can't install or upgrade them ourselves.
The argument over 8GB vs 16GB vs 32GB vs 64GB vs 128GB is more about other people anxious to spend other people's money.
The uncomfortable truth is that 8GB is more than adequate for the majority of the users of Mac computers. I have run Photoshop and Lightroom on 8GB and 16GB on Mac and find no discernible difference. I have run Photoshop and Lightroom on 16GB and 64GB on Windows and find no discernible difference.
I am a heavy user of Photoshop and Lightroom, well beyond the average user. The system may swap, I don't care. I don't care about the life of a SSD. I have one SSD that is four years old and is still at 95%. That means that only 5% of the cells have had to be relocated. The spare cells left are numbered in the 10's of thousands. That SSD will last another five years without issue at which time I will be replacing the system.
Watching memory use, memory pressure are foolish escapades for most users. All the user cares about is how the system responds to their needs. Using Photoshop the speed limit is the user. Using Lightroom the limit is encountered when doing imports with thumbnail creation and exports when changing formats. That is limited by the CPU speed, not memory.
The same applies when doing word documents. Spreadsheets are the same, the limiting factor is user input. Whether a spreadsheet recalculates in 0.01 seconds versus 0.02 seconds is irrelevant. The only real beneficiaries of lots of memory and a fast CPU are those doing video rendering. They know who they are and are not the average user.
So buy what you want, what you can afford. That $200.00 to get an extra 8GB may well be better spent on other items to make a user more productive such as more storage, an external mouse, or put the money toward an external display.
Those that need the extra memory know who they are and will pay the price. If I was making a living rendering 4K videos I would certainly go for the maximum memory, SSD and external display. It becomes a business expense. For the user with spreadsheets, word documents, presentation, email, the memory and storage requirements become nominal.
I have also heard the argument that one should decide based on the future, not now. The talking point being the memory requirements would increase over the years. That has not been the case in my experience. Ten years ago 4GB was considered a good choice for Windows. Today 4GB systems are still being sold that run Windows just fine. No heavy duty use of course but most people are not heavy duty users. Web, email, word processing, spreadsheets all seem to work. The requirements for Windows has not increased that much over those ten years. Certainly not enough to justify the cost of additional memory. What has increased are the disc storage requirements.
Those advising other users to purchase increased memory have never used a system in the user's environment and thus cannot substantiate the impact on the user. They are just guessing. Guessing with other people's money is easy but flawed.
The uncomfortable truth is that 8GB is more than adequate for the majority of the users of Mac computers. I have run Photoshop and Lightroom on 8GB and 16GB on Mac and find no discernible difference. I have run Photoshop and Lightroom on 16GB and 64GB on Windows and find no discernible difference.
I am a heavy user of Photoshop and Lightroom, well beyond the average user. The system may swap, I don't care. I don't care about the life of a SSD. I have one SSD that is four years old and is still at 95%. That means that only 5% of the cells have had to be relocated. The spare cells left are numbered in the 10's of thousands. That SSD will last another five years without issue at which time I will be replacing the system.
Watching memory use, memory pressure are foolish escapades for most users. All the user cares about is how the system responds to their needs. Using Photoshop the speed limit is the user. Using Lightroom the limit is encountered when doing imports with thumbnail creation and exports when changing formats. That is limited by the CPU speed, not memory.
The same applies when doing word documents. Spreadsheets are the same, the limiting factor is user input. Whether a spreadsheet recalculates in 0.01 seconds versus 0.02 seconds is irrelevant. The only real beneficiaries of lots of memory and a fast CPU are those doing video rendering. They know who they are and are not the average user.
So buy what you want, what you can afford. That $200.00 to get an extra 8GB may well be better spent on other items to make a user more productive such as more storage, an external mouse, or put the money toward an external display.
Those that need the extra memory know who they are and will pay the price. If I was making a living rendering 4K videos I would certainly go for the maximum memory, SSD and external display. It becomes a business expense. For the user with spreadsheets, word documents, presentation, email, the memory and storage requirements become nominal.
I have also heard the argument that one should decide based on the future, not now. The talking point being the memory requirements would increase over the years. That has not been the case in my experience. Ten years ago 4GB was considered a good choice for Windows. Today 4GB systems are still being sold that run Windows just fine. No heavy duty use of course but most people are not heavy duty users. Web, email, word processing, spreadsheets all seem to work. The requirements for Windows has not increased that much over those ten years. Certainly not enough to justify the cost of additional memory. What has increased are the disc storage requirements.
Those advising other users to purchase increased memory have never used a system in the user's environment and thus cannot substantiate the impact on the user. They are just guessing. Guessing with other people's money is easy but flawed.
You have no idea, nor does anyone else, why Apple decided to do what they did with memory prices and configurations.
My Surface Pro laptop is sealed, the memory cannot be changed or increased. In fact, the machine is basically not repairable if the SSD fails. Seems to be the same as Apple Air laptops. Memory prices are the same cost increase on the Microsoft product as the Apple product. An additional 8GB will cost $200.00. Sound familiar?
Other laptop vendors that make lightweight portable laptops have basically the same memory constraints with pricing. Yet no one is ripping the vendors chops for their pricing strategies.
Yet people are not chastising Microsoft, Dell, Lenovo for their decisions. Thus I can only conclude that what you are stating is nothing more than Apple bashing. If Apple charged $50.00 for a memory upgrade people would still complain.
I feel that if Apple increased the price of the M2 Air by $50.00, increased the memory to 16GB, people would complain about the price increase as Apple being greedy. People have a choice. No one is forcing them to buy an Apple product. A person can run the same applications on a Surface device, a Lenovo laptop, a Dell laptop. Yet they choose Apple, even with their prices.
If you want upgradeable memory and components, buy a desktop. Don't by an Apple product and then complain. You knew before you purchased the limitations. By your logic you are chastising yourself for your buying decision.
Just bought a 2023 M2 15.3” 8/256. Wasn’t sure if I wanted the big screen but it is great. I’ve always had the smallest air or MacBook but never again.
I usually have 20 windows open while running Excel, Teams, Outlook, FaceTime,
No issues. I use iCloud and don’t come close to maxing out the SSD.
I wasn’t sure if about a base model or 15” so I hedged and Bought it used with 7 months of warranty remaining for $700.
Best ever computer purchase.
I agree with you except for the swap, which many folk have been repeating here. If you all look at your memory resource usage, you will see that whatever the size of the memory, the swap is used the same. In fact with more memory it actually gets bigger. I think usage of SSD is a red herring.
How do you know how much headroom you have until you install a program that kinda pushes your computer? How much memory and swap are currently utilised for example?
And factually I can use "limited" to describe let's say 2GB "spare" RAM as opposed to let's say 10GB "spare" RAM. Comparatively it is very limited headroom. Literally.