Best Buy Introduces Record Low Prices on Apple's M3 MacBook Pro for Members

[iHorseHead]

MacOS uses up a good chunk of that 8GB right from the start. If you quit every running process and open app before running a game that requires 6GB you might squeak by with okay performance, but I wouldn't bet money on it.

I have Xcode (developing a cocoa app) open, Chrome, Safari with 9gag,macrumors,reddit (several tabs open) Firefox, surfshark,notes,TextEdit,Preview,Notes open it uses 6,52GB at the moment.
Every game I've tried so far runs fine. I mostly play CIV VI and I don't have to close any of the current apps I have open.

 

[Rychiar]

I have Xcode (developing a cocoa app) open, Chrome, Safari with 9gag,macrumors,reddit (several tabs open) Firefox, surfshark,notes,TextEdit,Preview,Notes open it uses 6,52GB at the moment.
Every game I've tried so far runs fine. I mostly play CIV VI and I don't have to close any of the current apps I have open.

Try batching some photos in adobe

 

[pdoherty]

I can't believe that a dozen years after 2012 where 8GB / 256GB was the default config on a MacBook Pro, we are freaking there again. Just shameful... it's the legal way to build planned obsolescence into their products.

And it was far less egregious back then, because you could upgrade RAM and storage yourself, unlike now where you're stuck with whatever it came with.

 

[theluggage]

There are laptops produced with 2GB only… Some are 4GB.

…and they usually sell for half the price, or less, of the cheapest Mac laptop.

Other premium laptops like Thinkpads or Dell XPSs - that sell in the $1000 to $2000 range and also use “expensive” LPDDR5 RAM - are increasingly coming with 16GB as standard and/or much cheaper upgrade prices. (Of course, there are a ridiculous number of PCs and PC suppliers so you can always cherry pick a bad deal from somewhere).

Maybe 8GB will be enough for your current and future work, maybe it won’t - but in 2024, 16 Gb is a relatively modest amount of RAM and it shouldn’t be a “high-end” option that buyers of $1400+ computers have to agonise over.

At least Apple have now introduced 16GB stock options, so they’re turning up in offers like this - but they’re still $200 more than the 8GB version, just like BTO - even with this Best Buy offer the 16GB version still costs $200 more than the 8GB.

 

[ElectricPotato]

8GB of ram should be illegal outside of a cell phone these days.

Retro computing is popular these days. Now you can pay $1600 for 8GB, just like decades ago.

 

[Ries]

I have Xcode (developing a cocoa app) open, Chrome, Safari with 9gag,macrumors,reddit (several tabs open) Firefox, surfshark,notes,TextEdit,Preview,Notes open it uses 6,52GB at the moment.
Every game I've tried so far runs fine. I mostly play CIV VI and I don't have to close any of the current apps I have open.

Running a game and running it well is not the same thing. Most AAA games have 8 or 12Gb as minimum, that is for running with stuff turned down to low fidelity. The recommended amount is usually 16GB. Neither is loading up a bunch of apps and letting them rest in the background swapped to disk. Try having adobe working on data, then compile on Xcode and watch it implode.

 

[iHorseHead]

Running a game and running it well is not the same thing. Most AAA games have 8 or 12Gb as minimum, that is for running with stuff turned down to low fidelity. The recommended amount is usually 16GB. Neither is loading up a bunch of apps and letting them rest in the background swapped to disk. Try having adobe working on data, then compile on Xcode and watch it implode.

Runs well for me. I don't notice anything.
I can try it if you'll pay for the subscription and let you know the results.

 

[iHorseHead]

…and they usually sell for half the price, or less, of the cheapest Mac laptop.

Other premium laptops like Thinkpads or Dell XPSs - that sell in the $1000 to $2000 range and also use “expensive” LPDDR5 RAM - are increasingly coming with 16GB as standard and/or much cheaper upgrade prices. (Of course, there are a ridiculous number of PCs and PC suppliers so you can always cherry pick a bad deal from somewhere).

Maybe 8GB will be enough for your current and future work, maybe it won’t - but in 2024, 16 Gb is a relatively modest amount of RAM and it shouldn’t be a “high-end” option that buyers of $1400+ computers have to agonise over.

At least Apple have now introduced 16GB stock options, so they’re turning up in offers like this - but they’re still $200 more than the 8GB version, just like BTO - even with this Best Buy offer the 16GB version still costs $200 more than the 8GB.

Not really. I just checked for those in Walmart. Some were $700.

Also, I don't trust Apple 'future proofing' anything. In 2006 you could've had G4 Mac Pro with 16GB for future proofing but in 2011 it was useless.
I already paid extra for ram back in 2008 for my MacBook in order to future proof it and it didn't even support Mountain Lion.
Also, 8GB Mac mini is better than Mac Pro from 2013 with 64GB of RAM. Luke Miani made a video on this as well. I don't trust Apple future proofing anything. They drop the OS support like crazy.Windows 10 is way more usable than Catalina despite being so many years older. Not everyone needs 16GB of RAM and 8GB of RAM isn't bad. My Mac's still snappy and even Xcode works well.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

8GB of RAM is even enough on my Windows 10 work PC tbh. Never had an issue with either.

Was your work PC with 8GB of RAM $1600+ like the crippled MBP 14 M3 is?

 

[iHorseHead]

Was your work PC with 8GB of RAM $1600+ like the crippled MBP 14 M3 is?

It's several years old and I don't think so, considering I found one store selling the exact same computer for 499€ 32GB of RAM.

 

[ninetyCent]

There are laptops produced with 2GB only… Some are 4GB.
8GB is just fine. What can't you do with the 8GB of RAM? For a casual user, it's fine too.
It's not as bad as 64MB of RAM on iBook G3.

It's also not as bad as 4byte RAM they used to have before they invented the sewage system. What's the point of comparing that. And no, 8GB is not fine on a pro laptop with that type of chipset. It's like an Audi R8 with a 1.2 liter engine. It'll get you places but that's just ridiculous.

 

[fehhkk]

Too quick of a succession of introducing the M2, then the 3 and now talking about the M4 already. Everyone remembers the M1, but the M2 got swept into obsolescence very quickly

 

[theluggage]

Also, I don't trust Apple 'future proofing' anything. In 2006 you could've had G4 Mac Pro with 16GB for future proofing but in 2011 it was useless.

We're not talking about maxing something out with 16x it's base spec to "future proof" it in the hope it will magically last a decade - we're talking about starting out with what is already the base spec (16GB) for competing machines so it doesn't start running out of RAM - or wearing out the SSD - in the next year or so.

Assuming you mean the 2006 Intel Mac Pro (no such thing as a "2006 G4 Mac Pro") - that machine came with 1GB. "Future proofing" would have been upgrading it to 2GB, not 16GB, which was pretty extreme in 2006. Anyway, that sort of "future proofing" was unnecessary because the RAM then was user-upgradeable. The only reason for maxing it out with 16GB would be if you really, really needed - right then - 16 times more memory than the base spec.

I actually had one - and because 1GB was very limiting, later upgraded it to 3GB with a 3rd party kit (ridiculously easy - didn't even need a screwdriver; still cost £200 but that was a lot less than Apple wanted) - and it was my main machine until 2011 - and the only reason I stopped using it then was because I needed to switch to a laptop, it was still quite usable (and could still have been upgraded if I'd wanted). If it had been stuck with the original 1GB RAM it would have been landfill by 2010.

Likewise, the next system was a 2011 MacBook Pro - bought with 4GB RAM - lasted me till 2017 but only because of a mid-life upgrade to 8GB and a 256GB SSD. 2017 iMac - ditto, standard 8GB ridiculous for a high-end i7 model, but adding a 3rd party upgrade to 24GB was a cinch.

There's a pattern here - many Macs come with a paltry amount of standard RAM and have done since forever, and Apple charge a ridiculous markup for upgrades. That used to be mitigated by the fact that most Macs were upgradeable with cheap (but often the same parts that Apple sold) 3rd party products, That's no longer possible with Apple Silicon, yet Apple froze their base RAM specs and upgrade prices sometime in the mid 2010s - even with RAM prices falling and RAM demand increasing (a 4k video, or "retina" image occupies 4x the space of standard def... )

 

[nawnp]

I remember how excited i once was at the prospect of m3 and then it arrived with little improvement or fanfare and now it seems like its being quickly discounted and swept aside

The fact that M3 wasn't given a dedicated presentation and they did the Pro & Max chips on the MacBook Pro at release time told us how the chips production was messed up.

With that said the M3 and M3 Max both had good upgrades, the M3 Pro was the one that was for some reason downgraded. Now the M3 is within reach of the M3 Pro performance(and M1 Pro) while the M3 Max is within reach of the M2 Ultra.

I can't believe that a dozen years after 2012 where 8GB / 256GB was the default config on a MacBook Pro, we are freaking there again. Just shameful... it's the legal way to build planned obsolescence into their products.

As much as people will say Apple has moved past the Intel era, they clearly haven't. We've regressed the MacBook designs adding back legacy ports and bizarre notches, moved back to the pre touchbar keyboards and still offering the same configurations in ram and storage of that era.

 

[iHorseHead]

We're not talking about maxing something out with 16x it's base spec to "future proof" it in the hope it will magically last a decade - we're talking about starting out with what is already the base spec (16GB) for competing machines so it doesn't start running out of RAM - or wearing out the SSD - in the next year or so.

Assuming you mean the 2006 Intel Mac Pro (no such thing as a "2006 G4 Mac Pro") - that machine came with 1GB. "Future proofing" would have been upgrading it to 2GB, not 16GB, which was pretty extreme in 2006. Anyway, that sort of "future proofing" was unnecessary because the RAM then was user-upgradeable. The only reason for maxing it out with 16GB would be if you really, really needed - right then - 16 times more memory than the base spec.

I actually had one - and because 1GB was very limiting, later upgraded it to 3GB with a 3rd party kit (ridiculously easy - didn't even need a screwdriver; still cost £200 but that was a lot less than Apple wanted) - and it was my main machine until 2011 - and the only reason I stopped using it then was because I needed to switch to a laptop, it was still quite usable (and could still have been upgraded if I'd wanted). If it had been stuck with the original 1GB RAM it would have been landfill by 2010.

Likewise, the next system was a 2011 MacBook Pro - bought with 4GB RAM - lasted me till 2017 but only because of a mid-life upgrade to 8GB and a 256GB SSD. 2017 iMac - ditto, standard 8GB ridiculous for a high-end i7 model, but adding a 3rd party upgrade to 24GB was a cinch.

There's a pattern here - many Macs come with a paltry amount of standard RAM and have done since forever, and Apple charge a ridiculous markup for upgrades. That used to be mitigated by the fact that most Macs were upgradeable with cheap (but often the same parts that Apple sold) 3rd party products, That's no longer possible with Apple Silicon, yet Apple froze their base RAM specs and upgrade prices sometime in the mid 2010s - even with RAM prices falling and RAM demand increasing (a 4k video, or "retina" image occupies 4x the space of standard def... )

The Power Mac G5 is a series of personal computers designed, manufactured, and sold by Apple Computer, Inc. from 2003 to 2006 as part of the Power Mac series - Sorry, I meant that.

 

[theluggage]

The Power Mac G5 is a series of personal computers designed, manufactured, and sold by Apple Computer, Inc. from 2003 to 2006 as part of the Power Mac series - Sorry, I meant that.

OK.
They came with 512MB of easily-upgradeable RAM as standard, so getting 16GB for "future proofing" would have been even more extreme. Especially after the Intel transition was announced in 2005 - you'd more likely be grabbing one because you were worried that your legacy software wasn't going to get ported to Intel.

 

[Johnny907]

I remember how excited i once was at the prospect of m3 and then it arrived with little improvement or fanfare and now it seems like its being quickly discounted and swept aside

Probably right. The sales I’ve seen on M3 models so far have been nuts.

I upgraded to the M3 MBA solely for the dual monitor support as it was the only thing I didn’t like about the M1, which went to my high school senior that will be off to college in the fall.

 

[TracesOfArsenic]

8GB of ram should be illegal outside of a cell phone these days.

Ripping customers off with RAM has always been a big cash cow for Apple. The difference being back in the day you could buy third party RAM for a fraction of the price and drop it in yourself. Apple snuffed that out in typical fashion.

 

[svish]

Good price for the MacBook Pros with M3

 

[PBG4 Dude]

Ripping customers off with RAM has always been a big cash cow for Apple. The difference being back in the day you could buy third party RAM for a fraction of the price and drop it in yourself. Apple snuffed that out in typical fashion.

indeed. Upgraded my 2020 iMac from 8GB to 64GB RAM for $309.