Still only 8 GB RAM in base model M3 iMac!

[ZebedeeG]

Yes, let's hope Apple decreases the RAM to the good old iMac Early 2013 4 GB RAM, it'll probably work just fine!

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

LOL - I'm not suggesting that for a moment!! More RAM is always better...

But I am saying that for some of us who don't use memory hungry applications, 8GB really can be enough for the machine to run quickly and smoothly. So why pay unnecessary Apple tax?! (Which ain't better for my purse 🥴)

I do admit that I was a little surprised that the base memory didn't get bumped to at least 12GB for the M3 - but it's also questionable if I'd notice the difference! 😆 If my computer does everything I ask of it then RAM is just a number...

 

[AlixSPQR]

For me it's like putting bicycle tires on a Ferrari. Sure, it'll go fine if you don't try to drive it too hard.

 

[B S Magnet]

Sure - the 8GB machines swap memory to disk a lot more, but I can't see any visible difference in performance for what I'm doing. So what does it matter 🤷‍♀️

(The SSDs on the 8GB machines don't seem to be showing excessive writes either.)

The problem isn’t so much the swapping.

Rather, the problem is with the cumulative wear of writing virtual memory to a soldered SSD (along with the writing of user-related stuff being saved). Obviously, the lower the onboard (soldered) RAM, the more reliance on swapping tends to follow.

When an Apple SSD fails (they have, and they do, including on Macs, ask me how I know!), there is often little to zero warning, and the ability to recover data from it is, usually, futile.

Sure, opting for iCloud or local backup storage can offset much of that in the event of hardware failure, but unlike the days when one could just swap out the SSD, these days, with the way Apple design and build their products, this means tossing out the entire iMac. Which is, ecologically, foolhardy (industrial-scale recycling still consumes enormous energy) and a wilful act of corporate irresponsibility on Apple’s behalf in the name of their aggressive approach to planning obsolescence.

Anyhow, that’s just something worth adding to the mix of making a buying decision.

 

[Lift Bar]

8GB of RAM is enough for most users, as modern SSDs efficiently handle swapping. The "always more RAM" argument is archaic, rooted in the era of slow hard drives. Future-proofing is the most common argument for more RAM, suggesting it might be needed someday.

However, tasks like video editing, large orchestral libraries in music production, 3D rendering, and running virtual machines benefit from more RAM. If you engage in these activities and don't have enough RAM, you might experience occasional issues.

 

[Oluwasanme]

The problem isn't for us, the problem is for those that aren't computer savvy. It wouldn't even be a problem if the memory was upgradeable, but these machines are locked in at 8Gb forever. Once a version of the OS or an app requires more, then these simply can't use those versions.

The notion that Apple would HAVE to charge more to make the base model 16Gb instead of 8Gb is ridiculous. In years past when they have upgraded the base-model specs there is not always a price increase. Apple just makes a little less on the sale, which is part of business and making your products better. Presumably 8Gb of ram costs less than it did 3 years ago!

My argument is that Apple should make up for the fact that the memory is non-upgradable by putting MORE than is actually needed by most people at the moment. Not leave it up to the average customer to be as knowledgable as people that post on computer forums.

But I think for most of us, this isn't about what is enough for US. It's the concept of making quality products that will last. Apple is a brand where that is expected, and we are disappointed that they aren't staying true to that.

It's the concept of making money that will make shareholders last. Apple is a brand where that is expected, and we are not disappointed that they are staying true to that.

 

[B S Magnet]

8GB of RAM is enough for most users, as modern SSDs efficiently handle swapping. The "always more RAM" argument is archaic, rooted in the era of slow hard drives. Future-proofing is the most common argument for more RAM, suggesting it might be needed someday.

I factored in wear-levelling and garbage collection on my MBP, and the OEM SSD still failed. This was on a model to ship with 8GB soldered RAM.

So your remark here is not terribly instructive or, frankly, constructive.

However, tasks like video editing, large orchestral libraries in music production, 3D rendering, and running virtual machines benefit from more RAM. If you engage in these activities and don't have enough RAM, you might experience occasional issues.

I conjecture (with considerable experience) that more RAM is beneficial for every user.

This fact is also how and why Apple can (and do) charge a royal ransom for the buying of RAM — and only at time of purchase — for a price far in excess of what the commodity value of the DRAM components constitute.

I stand by what I wrote earlier.

 

[ZebedeeG]

For me it's like putting bicycle tires on a Ferrari. Sure, it'll go fine if you don't try to drive it too hard.

I think that's a fair comment...

To continue the car analogy, I think Apple sees the iMac (and probably anything with the base cpu in it) as more of a mildly hot hatch - made to look nice when popping down to the post office, doing a bit of shopping, and socialising! Which is probably all 99% of customers who buy off the shelf machines actually do?! 😁

 

[AlixSPQR]

8GB of RAM is enough for most users, as modern SSDs efficiently handle swapping. The "always more RAM" argument is archaic, rooted in the era of slow hard drives. Future-proofing is the most common argument for more RAM, suggesting it might be needed someday.

However, tasks like video editing, large orchestral libraries in music production, 3D rendering, and running virtual machines benefit from more RAM. If you engage in these activities and don't have enough RAM, you might experience occasional issues.

SSD's are not constructed to deal with large amounts of swap, they deteriorate over time and will suddenly fail. Then we'll find that they can't be replaced, since they are soldered on board. It is technically possible, as shown here, but as you can see Apple is actively trying to stop it. Probably due to ”security”.

 

[ZebedeeG]

Ahh.. but their marketing department has a cunning way round this...

AppleCare+ 🤗

A way to relieve us of even more money! 🤑

 

[PaulD-UK]

Quote:"SSD's are not constructed to deal with large amounts of swap, they deteriorate over time and will suddenly fail."

Here's a data-point about how soon the SSD in an 8GB RAM Mac might fail - or rather not...

#3,596
"Macbook Air M1, 8GB, 512GB, after close to 3 years of pretty heavy use. 1.15PB written is just 36% used? I guess I'm really flogging the poor fellow, but this would suggest I'm still projected to get another ~6 years out of this SSD at the current rate for a total of over 3PB units written?"

(1 PB = 1,000 TB)

 

[B S Magnet]

Quote:"SSD's are not constructed to deal with large amounts of swap, they deteriorate over time and will suddenly fail."

Here's a data-point about how soon the SSD in an 8GB RAM Mac might fail - or rather not...

#3,596
"Macbook Air M1, 8GB, 512GB, after close to 3 years of pretty heavy use. 1.15PB written is just 36% used? I guess I'm really flogging the poor fellow, but this would suggest I'm still projected to get another ~6 years out of this SSD at the current rate for a total of over 3PB units written?"

(1 PB = 1,000 TB)

SSDs can (and do) fail for other reasons beyond total writes. Regardless, there is very little to zero warning of impending failure, even when a utility reports “36 per cent” of lifetime projected wear.

The anecdata example you cited is no more or less instructive than an instance when a user (I count myself here!) experiences an SSD failure. In fact, the rate of failure is probably not terribly different from modern HDDs.

Once more, for those in the back of the room:

It isn’t the failure of the SSD itself constituting a much bigger problem whenever it happens inside an iMac or other consumer Mac (which includes all the Pro models, Mac Pro generally excepted). Rather, the problem is when it does happen, one must basically throw out the system (and/or pay a royal ransom for completely replacing its logic board — which, the way Apple govern the distribution of spare parts, amounts to a cost nearly on par with, not coincidentally, replacing the entire system).

Again, the above is for consumers to keep in mind, especially when they’re buying for another family member.

 

[ZebedeeG]

Quote:"SSD's are not constructed to deal with large amounts of swap, they deteriorate over time and will suddenly fail."

Here's a data-point about how soon the SSD in an 8GB RAM Mac might fail - or rather not...

#3,596
"Macbook Air M1, 8GB, 512GB, after close to 3 years of pretty heavy use. 1.15PB written is just 36% used? I guess I'm really flogging the poor fellow, but this would suggest I'm still projected to get another ~6 years out of this SSD at the current rate for a total of over 3PB units written?"

(1 PB = 1,000 TB)

Hmm.. my 2 1/2 year old M1 iMac (purchased at launch) is now showing 20.3TB written to it's 2TB SSD...

🤔 When it comes to "deteriorating over time and suddenly failing" I have a nasty suspicion I've got more to worry about than my beloved iMac! 😵

 

[B S Magnet]

Hmm.. my 2 1/2 year old M1 iMac (purchased at launch) is now showing 20.3TB written to it's 2TB SSD...

🤔 When it comes to "deteriorating over time and suddenly failing" I have a nasty suspicion I've got more to worry about than my beloved iMac! 😵

It’s always good to keep a backup nearby, at home (in addition to and/or separate from cloud backups), in case drive failure happens.

I don’t remember whether the SSD NAND chips on Silicon Macs are TLC or QLC. These days, QLC has become a lot more common (and Apple, for the quality they design/build into their products, still rely on the commodity market for the NAND components on their soldered SSDs). The trouble is in the number of times a TLC, versus a QLC block can be written. Either way, it’s generally, going to be far greater than the 10-to-1 ratio (where your iMac is at right now). Of course, it isn’t only read-and-write wear which causes SSDs to fail.

Which, again, it’s always really invaluable to have a local backup, like on an external Time Machine volume (or another product designed to do the very same task).

 

[Sami13496]

Is 12GB some kind of troll meme? Because it’s 8 -> 16 (2 x 8) -> 24 (3 x 8) …

 

[AlixSPQR]

Quote:"SSD's are not constructed to deal with large amounts of swap, they deteriorate over time and will suddenly fail."

Here's a data-point about how soon the SSD in an 8GB RAM Mac might fail - or rather not...

#3,596
"Macbook Air M1, 8GB, 512GB, after close to 3 years of pretty heavy use. 1.15PB written is just 36% used? I guess I'm really flogging the poor fellow, but this would suggest I'm still projected to get another ~6 years out of this SSD at the current rate for a total of over 3PB units written?"

(1 PB = 1,000 TB)

Not all will experience the same. Since he has checked, he knows that wear levelling is a potential problem. But not for his MBA, which is fortunate for him. But I wouldn't assume the SSD will last just because his did. If you do, that's fine by me.

 

[AlixSPQR]

Is 12GB some kind of troll meme? Because it’s 8 -> 16 (2 x 8) -> 24 (3 x 8) …

The rumour had it that it was going to be 3 x 4 GB instead of 2 x 4 GB. It was just a rumour.

 

[Sami13496]

The rumour had it that it was going to be 3 x 4 GB instead of 2 x 4 GB. It was just a rumour.

Oh. Ok. I missed that rumour 😄

 

[kp98077]

This laptop will be perfect for students, or those who don't need all of the power of the regular pro, but who do not want the air (due to screen etc.) which is me essentially. Although, I wish it were offered in the black!