8GB RAM in M3 MacBook Pro Proves the Bottleneck in Real-World Tests

[MacRumors]

Apple's new MacBook Pro models are powered by cutting-edge M3 Apple silicon, but the base configuration 14-inch model starting at $1,599 comes with just 8GB of working memory. In 2012, Apple launched the first MacBook Pro with Retina display, which also started with 8GB of RAM. Of course, Apple now uses integrated chips with unified memory architecture, which is why the company feels confident in arguing that 8GB on a Mac is comparable to 16GB on rival systems.

But not everyone is convinced. Apple's decision not to equip base models with at least 16GB of RAM in late 2023 has proved incongruous to many users, including Vadim Yuryev, co-host of the YouTube channel Max Tech. Yuryev decided to perform several real-world tests on two 14-inch M3 MacBook Pro models, one with 8GB and the other upgraded to 16GB of unified memory. The embedded video above has all the results.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Yuryev saw significant performance improvements across the board using the 16GB machine under both middling and heavier workloads. The 8GB model suffered double-digit losses in Cinebench benchmarks, and took several minutes longer to complete photo-merging jobs in Photoshop as well as media exports in Final Cut and Adobe Lightroom Classic.

These tests were conducted as single operations with nothing else running, but also repeated with browser tabs, YouTube videos, spreadsheets, emails, and the like, open in the background to simulate typical real-world multi-tasking scenarios. As expected, the performance gap between the two machines widened further as the 8GB increasingly relied on its SSD swap file, while all-round responsiveness took a hit. Yuryev even reported crashes on the 8GB model during Blender rendering and a Final Cut export.

Notably, Blender's raytracing acceleration was available as an option on the 16GB models, but was conspicuously absent on the 8GB MacBook Pro for an identical rendering job, suggesting the reduced memory pool actually prevents the GPU cores from utilizing certain features.

Tests like these present a dilemma for customers looking to purchase a new MacBook Pro (or a new 8GB iMac, for that matter). Settling for 8GB appears to hinder the M3 chip's performance, but choosing 16GB or 24GB configuration options at checkout costs an extra $200 and $400, respectively, and Apple's machines cannot be upgraded at a later date because of their unified memory architecture.

After factoring in the extra $200 for 16GB on a 14-inch M3 MacBook Pro, an M3 Pro model with 18GB and several other extra features is only $200 more at $1,999. More galling perhaps is the fact that rival laptops at similar ballpark prices (Microsoft Surface or Lenovo Thinkpad, for example) come with at least 16GB of memory as standard. Apple customers are expected to pay $200 extra each jump up, which surely includes a healthy markup, however much Apple pays its RAM suppliers.

Is Apple's 8GB starting configuration for a $1,599 MacBook Pro really acceptable in 2023? And has the company's memory pricing policy affected your own purchase options? Let us know in the comments.

Article Link: 8GB RAM in M3 MacBook Pro Proves the Bottleneck in Real-World Tests

 

[abatabia]

Apple really needs to stop being petty like this in 2023 and make 16 the base. Reminds me of the 16gb base model iPhone days. Come on.

 

[gpat]

So I suppose that 8GB on a Mac are not equal to 16GB on a PC.

Apple actually went and claimed that. I felt so ashamed as an Apple Silicon user.

 

[Sheepish-Lord]

So I suppose that 8GB on a Mac are not equal to 16GB on a PC.

Apple actually went and claimed that. I felt so ashamed as an Apple Silicon user.

That was an Apple marketing VP or something. Dude doesn’t have the credibility to even say something like that from an engineering standpoint.

 

[t0rqx]

These base models will never dissapear. These are the most important and revenue / profit driving models for Apple (even if they never sell). It is only a big bonus if they sell for Apple.

 

[ddhhddhh2]

I was totally blown away by this – I almost taught the kids that 8 is greater than 16. Turns out, the real deal is that 16 is actually greater than 8. What an amazing discovery!

 

[gpat]

That was an Apple marketing VP or something. Dude doesn’t have the credibility to even say something like that from an engineering standpoint.

He still spoke on the behalf of a company.

It means that either Apple endorses this kind of misinformation, or somebody needs to lose their job or at least be reeducated, or at least a rectification needs to come out.

But we all know the correct answer to this dilemma.

 

[Sheepish-Lord]

Apple really needs to stop being petty like this in 2023 and make 16 the base. Reminds me of the 16gb base model iPhone days. Come on.

Pretty sure it’s just so Apple can claim a low entry price. Honestly, 8gb does get you pretty far for just a jack of all trades, master of none laptop.

 

[sparkinstx]

As low as memory costs are now, why would Apple cheap out like this?

 

[Nukedude]

Apple's new MacBook Pro models are powered by cutting-edge M3 Apple silicon, but the base configuration 14-inch model starting at $1,599 comes with just 8GB of working memory. In 2012, Apple launched the first MacBook Pro with Retina display, which also started with 8GB of RAM. Of course, Apple now uses integrated chips with unified memory architecture, which is why the company feels confident in arguing that 8GB on a Mac is comparable to 16GB on rival systems.

But not everyone is convinced. Apple's decision not to equip base models with at least 16GB of RAM in late 2023 has proved incongruous to many users, including Vadim Yuryev, co-host of the YouTube channel Max Tech. Yuryev decided to perform several real-world tests on two 14-inch M3 MacBook Pro models, one with 8GB and the other upgraded to 16GB of unified memory. The embedded video above has all the results.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Yuryev saw significant performance improvements across the board using the 16GB machine under both middling and heavier workloads. The 8GB model suffered double-digit losses in Cinebench benchmarks, and took several minutes longer to complete photo-merging jobs in Photoshop as well as media exports in Final Cut and Adobe Lightroom Classic.

These tests were conducted as single operations with nothing else running, but also repeated with browser tabs, YouTube videos, spreadsheets, emails, and the like, open in the background to simulate typical real-world multi-tasking scenarios. As expected, the performance gap between the two machines widened further as the 8GB increasingly relied on its SSD swap file, while all-round responsiveness took a hit. Yuryev even reported crashes on the 8GB model during Blender rendering and a Final Cut export.

Notably, Blender's raytracing acceleration was available as an option on the 16GB models, but was conspicuously absent on the 8GB MacBook Pro for an identical rendering job, suggesting the reduced memory pool actually prevents the GPU cores from utilizing certain features.

Tests like these present a dilemma for customers looking to purchase a new MacBook Pro (or a new 8GB iMac, for that matter). Settling for 8GB appears to hinder the M3 chip's performance, but choosing 16GB or 24GB configuration options at checkout costs an extra $200 and $400, respectively, and Apple's machines cannot be upgraded at a later date because of their unified memory architecture.

After factoring in the extra $200 for 16GB on a 14-inch M3 MacBook Pro, an M3 Pro model with 18GB and several other extra features is only $200 more at $1,999. More galling perhaps is the fact that rival laptops at similar ballpark prices (Microsoft Surface or Lenovo Thinkpad, for example) come with at least 16GB of memory as standard. Apple customers are expected to pay $200 extra each jump up, which surely includes a healthy markup, however much Apple pays its RAM suppliers.

Is Apple's 8GB starting configuration for a $1,599 MacBook Pro really acceptable in 2023? And has the company's memory pricing policy affected your own purchase options? Let us know in the comments.

Article Link: 8GB RAM in M3 MacBook Pro Proves the Bottleneck in Real-World Tests

*Max Yuryev

 

[SAIRUS]

How many meetings do you think Tim will have on this to understand the issue and work with marketing and pass that cost onto the next model?

 

[jbachandouris]

Fortunately Best Buy didn’t have this configuration in stock when I went there.

18GB (misprint on site?) and 512GB SSD 14”

 

[MapleBeercules]

This is a production thing and not a marketing thing. Chips dont always come out perfect, so you need to bin them for what class they fall under, if you have a m3 chip that can operate just fine with 8gb of ram and 256gb of storage, why throw it out?! This is why intel has so many product lines when a new chip is released and the top chips are so expensive, they try to price out the demand curve for the high end product and sell everyone the binned ones.

 

[enb141]

So I suppose that 8GB on a Mac are not equal to 16GB on a PC.

Apple actually went and claimed that. I felt so ashamed as an Apple Silicon user.

What they meant is that 8GB on a mac cost equal to an equivalent 16GB on a PC.

 

[Scott6666]

The drag is not only the money. The bigger drag is that you generally can’t just walk into a store and buy a 16GB one. Has to be special ordered.

 

[klrobinson999]

The only way to break Apple of this BS, is NOT to buy the M3 MacBooks. They will get the hint eventually. There is zero justification for 8GB of RAM in the current marketplace, especially in Pro model machines.

 

[boak]

Another low-quality clickbait from that channel, which doesn't know what they're talking about. Every configuration has a bottleneck.

Would you call the base M chip a bottleneck too?

Need more? Buy more. Simple as that. Not everyone needs 16 GB.

 

[cheesygrin]

This has been done to death now, but I think my conclusion is:

There's no question that in 2023, an expensive and PRO machine SHOULD come with minimum 16GB

Unified memory architechture HELPS, but does not replace sheer quanity of RAM. 8GB may be equivalent to around 10GB non-unified.

Apple do this because they can get away it. They make huge amounts of money on memory upgrades, and because it's the only way to buy a machine running macOS, many will pay the premium.

If you NEED or WANT macOS enough, pay the premium and get the upgraded RAM and storage. If you prefer a bargain, take your business elsewhere.

 

[contacos]

This thing with 8 GB is basically last years MacBook Pro (with TouchBar) with a big price increase but Apple makes everyone believe they actually lowered the price, just because they put it in the "new" casing

 

[cflem]

I'm as big of an apple fanboy as the rest of them - but Apple needs to be careful about this stuff - people have the ability and WILL test... and it only hurts apple when the market proves them wrong. Like most are saying - Apple has BILLIONS in the bank... why are we STILL talking about 8GB base RAM and 252GB (or less) base storage in 2023 when prices on components like that are cheap... and on top of that - why are we charging a mega premium for higher... makes no sense... and its dangerous.

 

[ccsicecoke]

Not all treats.

Tricks on ya, again

 

[brofkand]

Hmm, so 8GB is really not like 16GB. Obviously we knew that. Apple should be ashamed. Time for Low End Mac to expand the list of "Road Apples".

 

[boak]

There's no question that in 2023, an expensive and PRO machine SHOULD come with minimum 16GB

Disagree. There's an option to upgrade if needed. Why should customers pay for more memory they don't need?

This is a separate discussion from the pricing of memory.

 

[djphat2000]

8GB is not enough for running applications like that. I think we all should know that by now. If you're doing FC, Blender, C4D or Adobe anything, you get as much RAM as you can afford. So no one is really going to buy an 8GB model for that. It's kind of miss-leading to even make a performance comparison using it. Other than to clearly state the obvious. Don't buy lowest end Mac pro for this kind of work. If you're not doing that kind of work. 8GB is fine for most basic tasks. Which is why it is an option. If you're in school, and need/want a Mac Book. This is clearly aimed at that group. Writers, or content consumption. NOT for creation, and heavy multitasking.

Apple stating that 8GB is like Windows with 16. Is factoring in features that exist on the Mac that can alleviate some of the memory limitations. But, it's always better to have real RAM available to the system over SSD swapping.

So another note to self. Don't buy the least powerful Mac and expect it to work miracles.
Know what type of work you're going to be doing with it, and purchase accordingly. All of my Mac's (ALL OF THEM) in the past 10 years have had 32GB or MORE of RAM. They don't need the highest end CPU (iMac Pro is an 8 Core with 32GB of RAM. nMac Pro has 64GB of RAM as it was upgradable). All of my MacBook Pro's have 32GB of ram. Even this M2 Max has 32. My M1 Max Studio has 32GB, and so on. I have not experienced any memory issues or speed issues or any issues (except heat on those intel mac's).

Should Apple sell ONLY 16GB as a base? You can argue that. But, having 8 as an option lowers the price of entry for those that really don't need more. And if it was taken away, others would complain that it's too expensive.
And others will complain that Apple should just eat the cost increase. And as a Shareholder I say NO to that.

 

[havaloc]

Some people need a Toyota Camry. Some need a Toyota Supra. Apple sells both, pro branding aside.