You're basically complaining about the price.
The question isn't about price but whether a Mac with 8Gb of RAM will work for some users.
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.
Is 8GB of RAM Enough for a Mac in 2024?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're basically complaining about the price.
The question isn't about price but whether a Mac with 8Gb of RAM will work for some users.
And you have the opportunity to buy more. It will only costs you more money.
It is really NASTY for APPLE to sell anything with so little RAM. It means 6 months to a year later you have to buy a whole new computer or device to get anything done. Yet, they PERSIST. The ones they hurt have no MONEY to do that! They do not CARE!![]()
The debate over whether 8GB of RAM is sufficient for a Mac has long been a topic of contention. The controversy goes back to at least 2012, when Apple launched the first MacBook Pro with Retina display, which started with 8GB of RAM. Apple still offers 8GB as the base configuration for its 14-inch MacBook Pro, not to mention its M3 iMac and the latest MacBook Air models. Coupled with the significant cost of upgrading to higher memory options, Apple's decision has once again sparked discussions about the adequacy and value of this configuration.
![m3-macbook-air-green.jpg]()
Of course, Macs have changed a lot over the last decade. For one, Apple no longer relies on Intel processors to power its machines, having developed its own Apple silicon, which is faster and more power efficient. This is because Apple's custom chips use "system-on-a-chip" (SoC) architecture, which integrates several processing cores (CPUs), graphics cores (GPUs), cache memory, and several other components within a single physical package.
Apple's M-series of chips also use something called "unified memory," which sits alongside the SoC. Apple's adoption of this high-bandwidth, low-latency memory means the main chip avoids having to communicate data between different memory locations, and it makes the memory pool available for both the CPU and GPU, allowing it to be allocated dynamically depending on the task at hand.
- Apple Silicon Buyer's Guide: Which Chip Should You Choose?
- Late 2023 MacBook Pro Buyer's Guide: 14-Inch vs 16-Inch Models
- MacBook Air Buyer's Guide: Comparing the Generations
While the overall result of this integrated SoC architecture is better performance and efficiency, the downside is that Apple's unified memory is fixed at the point of purchase and cannot be upgraded at a later date.
![M3-chip-series-unified-memory-architecture.jpg]()
Opting for more unified memory is not cheap either. For instance, going from the base 8GB of unified memory to 16GB or 24GB costs an extra $200 and $400, respectively. Therefore, it's important when buying a new Mac that you choose the right amount for your individual needs. User opinions on this topic are diverse, with some finding 8GB adequate and others feeling constrained. Ultimately, it comes down to what you want to do on your Mac. Here are the main factors to keep in mind.
8GB or More RAM?
- Daily Tasks and Light Usage: For basic tasks like web browsing, document editing, and media consumption, 8GB of RAM generally suffices. Modern Macs use features like memory compression and intelligent allocation, which help macOS run smoothly even during multitasking.
Professional and Creative Workloads: For more intensive tasks such as video editing, 3D modeling, or software development, 8GB may be limiting, and can cause slower performance and reduced efficiency, as independent tests have shown. This is especially true if you work on advanced projects that require enormous files and content libraries.
Wrapping Up
Ultimately, when buying a Mac, opting for 8GB of unified memory is a cost-effective option if you have light usage requirements, and it offers adequate performance for everyday tasks. However, if you intend to use more demanding applications, it may be worth paying the extra for more memory. This will reduce the risk of the memory acting as a system bottleneck, and allow the Apple silicon in your Mac to perform at its maximum potential.
Starting at $1,599, Apple's 14-inch M3 MacBook Pro comes with 8GB of unified memory, and choosing 16GB or 24GB costs an extra $200 and $400, respectively. However, it's worth noting that after factoring in the extra $200 for 16GB, an M3 Pro model with 18GB and several other extra features is only $200 more at $1,999.
Of course, if your main concern is affordability and/or portability, it may be worth considering a MacBook Air instead. Starting at $1,099, the new 13-inch MacBook Air with M3 chip has a 16GB configuration option for $200 extra, totaling $1,299. If you're looking for a bigger display, the 15-inch MacBook Air starts at $1,299, with the 16GB option taking the price up to $1,499.
Bear in mind that the M3 version of the MacBook Pro has a HDMI 2.1 port and SDXC card slot, while the MacBook Air models do not. The entry-level MacBook Pro also offers 22 hours of battery on a single charge, compared to 18 hours on the M3 MacBook Air. In addition, the M3 MacBook Air models have an LCD display, whereas the M3 MacBook Pro uses a superior mini-LED display.
Article Link: Is 8GB of RAM Enough for a Mac in 2024?
Yeah, it was a horrible memory leak, but it was reproducible. Anyhow I let it go for as long as possible until the machine crashed. I wanted to see if I could hit 100 GB memory usage, and I did.
Apparently, the simple act of trying to export your entire Photos library will freak Photos out. What's stupid is that this is an export of the original files, so no image processing is required. All that is required is to make directories and move a copy of the images over to the new directories. There are 3rd party apps that supposedly can do this with minimal memory usage.
This was in Ventura. I have not tried it in Sonoma. My solution at the time was break the export up into much smaller increments, and that worked, but that was much more tedious since it took about a dozen or so exports to get the entire library copied over.
Yup. I agree that for the price, the 8 GB model isn't a great value. But it will work fine for a ton of users. However, I think it would be reasonable for Apple to keep the same base price at 12 GB, say in 2025 or 2026.
In Norway, the base M3 MacBook Air costs €1360.
I would pay €3000 to avoid using Windows, Linux or Chromebooks.
I think since apple are more focused on consumers... they want to go the SoC route... no longer any options for expandability of RAM, Processor or SSD post purchase. It is what it is and I think as long as people know what they are buying, and buying into with Apple... then they will be fine.
Yeah, SSD have a limited number of drive writes... but that limit is so high that no average consumer will ever get near. You'd have to be deliberately writing 24/7 to the ssd for a very very long time indeed. Thats not representative of any normal consumer or prosumer workload.
This is for a Dell XPS 16 laptop. I don't know if the Dell machines can be upgraded after the purchase. The cost to go from 16GB to 32GB is $600.00. The cost to go from 32GB to 64GB is $900.00. Those prices are more than Apple's prices.
The costs for increases in storage are a little more reasonable, but still costly. Check it out for yourself.
XPS 16 Laptop | Dell USA
Shop the Dell XPS 16 powerful laptop with Intel Core Ultra processor, Windows 11 and 4K+ resolution. View on Dell.com
www.dell.com
Attachments
Well the simple fact you're online means you are using Linux at least someplace along the line.
Macs from 10-15 years ago are still quite capable of handling basic functions, provided they have sufficient RAM and an SSD. These upgrades can be affordable, allowing you to save money while still enjoying the Mac experience. So, being a Mac user and saving money aren’t mutually exclusive.
these discussions are always the dumbest. They sent men to the moon on much less computing power including RAM.
And just because you might be able to do something faster with more ram means little if you aren't doing it for a living or aren't doing it very often.
Also in this day and age, you can load stuff into ram in a few seconds compared to ~10 years ago when hard drives ruled the world. So even if you have to close some things to open up ram for something else, it's not that big of a deal. Again YMMV.
Which is the big reason why this is the dumbest discussion ever.
And just because you might be able to do something faster with more ram means little if you aren't doing it for a living or aren't doing it very often.
Also in this day and age, you can load stuff into ram in a few seconds compared to ~10 years ago when hard drives ruled the world. So even if you have to close some things to open up ram for something else, it's not that big of a deal. Again YMMV.
Which is the big reason why this is the dumbest discussion ever.
I very pleased with my system. One could say, Apple delivered your “proactive approach”, to computing.
If you despise Tim Cook and Apple so much, then don't buy Apple products.
Apple sells hundreds of thousands of machines, along with other products such as phones, tablets, watches and accessories. Go into an Apple Store on a Saturday and look at the crowds of people buying Apple products. Price is a secondary consideration if people want the products.
What Apple is doing is good for the stockholders to which Apple has to please. Apple does not have to please anyone here, myself included. I wish the product was cheaper. I wish cars and gas were cheaper.
BTW, I think it's likely the new OLED iPad Pros will also be limited to 8 GB for the base models, 16 GB at the top end. Maybe they'll increase those to 12 GB in an interation or two, but it's unlikely to be in 2024 IMO. However, I will be overjoyed if I'm wrong and April brings us 12 GB.
The reason I don't think they will give us 12 GB in 2024 though is because of OLED. Two-stack OLED is expensive enough as it is, so they'll try to save money on RAM. Plus, Apple tends to "ration" its upgrades over several iterations, so it would make sense to add OLED in spring 2024 and then 12 GB base in fall 2025 or early 2026.
The reason I don't think they will give us 12 GB in 2024 though is because of OLED. Two-stack OLED is expensive enough as it is, so they'll try to save money on RAM. Plus, Apple tends to "ration" its upgrades over several iterations, so it would make sense to add OLED in spring 2024 and then 12 GB base in fall 2025 or early 2026.
We are so excited to see how you cope with 8 GB RAM
🤔
For the record, I have no issue with 8 GM of RAM. or 16, or 32 GB. You get what you need for your workload.
Would Apple sales actually improved if Apple stopped selling computers with 8GB RAM?
I think that people are making an assumption that Apple would keep the 8GB computer cost while raising the amount of RAM to 16GB.
In the end, I'm not sure why people are concerned since they can buy a 16GB version already.
I think that people are making an assumption that Apple would keep the 8GB computer cost while raising the amount of RAM to 16GB.
In the end, I'm not sure why people are concerned since they can buy a 16GB version already.
Production volume as in total or as in 8Gb base formation.
Removing the need for an 8Gb base would on its own save Apple a considerable amount of money. It would also substantially increase the 16Gb run, so economies of scale is absolutely relevant.
For the most part the 16Gb is a BTO for much of the range, and that also significantly increases costs. Making the base 16Gb makes economic sense, as Apple cannot cling to ripping off customers by extortionate RAM upgrade prices without hitting their own customer base and you can see from some of the posts that is happening already.
So saving the cost of the current major 8Gb base configuration, saves many dollars, let alone substantially increasing the 16Gb no longer a BTO supplement that puts some customers off.
Its not the cost of the RAM to 16Gb, its part of the cost of unified memory, so cutting out the 8Gb will achieve cost savings on its own, and increasing the base to 16Gb as far as memory costs are concerned would be negligible if any cost at all when you consider the savings from deleting the 8Gb run and having a very significant 16Gb run.
Take a look at RAM cost, its not the RAM costs, its the implementation and Apple can easily reduce that cost by moving to a larger 16Gb base ram platform, and still charge for upgrades on BTO requirements.
Gives them great PR with them selling Apple's proactive decision.
Also likely to head off another potential class action from 8Gb buyers who find their machines have greater and greater swapping overheads, premature obsolescence, as software RAM requirements are not going to remain static.
First, for your workflow I would have gone 32GB. VM/Docker is an instant trigger for more RAM. It’s also why I run VM’s on Windows - it’s cheaper to build or buy an Intel box with 64GB - and you can upgrade later/at any time.
But second, although now not 2022, isn’t this why the M3 Pro/Max now offer 18/36/48, to give some buffer to VRAM?
And at least you know where the drain is going …
Your testing wouldn't be the right way to do it.
macOS is designed to use all the physical memory and to use swap. Every scenario you describe should result in almost all the memory being used and probably also swap.
What you need to measure is the experience of the users. Does it feel slow etc.
Sounds like a lot of handwaving and wishful thinking IMO.
There is no problem with 8 GB now at the low end, nor will there be in the next couple of years. Furthermore, it is highly likely the cost of the extra memory far outweighs the savings by going to 16 GB across the board. It usually makes sense to limit the number of production models, but only to a point. It usually does not make sense to over-spec the machine when most of your user base doesn't need it... and when most of your user base doesn't even care. My wife and kids don't even know how much memory they have in their Macs, and that's OK, because their Macs run just fine for them. (None of them have 16 GB. Two have 8 GB Macs, and the other one has a 12 GB Mac.)
That's not unpopular per se as much as it is just ignorant. Please refrain from posting such nonsense.
LMAO, ok David you could make it less obvious you work for Apple or are a cool aid drinker of Apple's either way you're VERY WRONG
16GB should be the minimum in 2024. Even if 8GB seems to be adequate for you (right now), what about the family member you may give your Mac to? They might need 16GB. You might even need it at a later date.