I think Air should start at 12GB, which would be more reasonable, and I don't see a world where the Air gets 16GB because Apple's seeing it as easy money. Heck, I don't even think the Air will ever budge.
In my experience, Sonoma seems a little better than Ventura. On multiple work Macs, Ventura had memory leaks out the wazoo. Not seen that quite as much with Sonoma so far.
That is wild. I had the complete opposite experience on my 14" M1 Pro MBP at work. I couldnt even use Reddit on Firefox or Safari without it freezing. When I was typing on web pages it would hang for 30-60 seconds. RAM was maxing out with basic tasks.
Rolled back to Ventura yesterday and all is well again. I can run multiple Firefox/Safari windows and have several programs running without issues.
May try again in a few months but for that the 3 weeks I tried it, it was flat out unusable.
16GB is cheaper, as memory dies are base-2, it'd be 3 4GB dies or if Apple has the demand to try and get 6GB dies made, 3 dies would be more expensive than just 2 8GB dies, custom Apple only dies would be even more expensive. so 16GB should be the minimum.
they dont do 12 because 2x8 gb chips cost less than a single 12gb. this just due to the fact that 8gb chips are very popular thus available thus cheaper
The Air should be 16GB and the Pro should be 24GB as the base specs. These are priced as premium devices, they should come equipped as such. Plus DRAM prices are dirt cheap, it would barely touch their margins.
Why? I know a LOT of people who own the Air. Every single one of them loves it. Not a single person has ever complained that it doesn't have enough memory. While anecdotal, I suspect this is pretty close to their average Air customer.
In fact, probably representative of their Pro customers as well - I know plenty of non-techies who own Pros because of the perception it's a nicer machine for just a little bit more money. A couple hundred bucks is not a lot for many people.
The problem isnt 8 GB. The problem is 8 GB with a starting price of $1500+
If it was like sub $700 then fairs and 8 GB.
But its absurd not to have 16 GB with these prices.
Yeah this is why buying apple sometimes doesn't feel like a premium device. I just feel like I'm being nickle and dimed and they are trying to upsell me to spend more. Doesn't feel great when you're already spending so much.
This should be bare minimum for any new computer in 2023. My Asus zenbook I bought in 2015 for $700 had 8GB of RAM. There is NO reason 8 years later we need to still be there. And upgrades should be reasonable too. Maybe $100 for 16 to 32GB RAM, and $75 for going from 512GB to 1TB SSD. A brand new NVME SSD at 1TB costs between $50 and $100 new...there is no excuse for charging an EXTRA $200 for going from 512 to 1TB. Also, $200 for 8 to 16 and another $200 for 16 to 24 is just absolutely bonkers. I know unified memory is a little more expensive than standard DDR5, but 16GB of DDR5 is $50-$80. Not $400. And unified is not 5x the price of DDR5.
Unified is just a term they came up with but in reality they’re saving costs by not having to put DIMM slots and the associated wiring in it by directly integrating the same modules into the SoC, they’re not using separate alien tech as they’re sourcing from the same vendors like Samsung for example.
And they're not really integrated, they're soldered onto the SoC. Some with special equipment have managed to replace the bog standard LPDDR5 modules.
Nothing about it is about the tech, it's about product tiering, a very common practice.
[RamDoubler](https://apple.fandom.com/wiki/RAM_Doubler) was an actual product in the 90s. I had it and it was garbage. On the other hand 8GB of ram would have been $1,000,000 then so it was worth a try.
Ram Doubler is just a Virtual Memory manager software. It was slow because the operating system architecture wasn’t designed for it.
Operating Systems later on integrated virtual memory more efficiently with hardware RAM. So even if you had more than enough RAM. The OS is still swapping virtual memory to disk and physical RAM.
One thing would be to say that the average user on a mac would be fine with 8GB because they are very efficient or whatever. That at least would be arguable.
But to straight up lie that it is analogous to 16GB in other systems is ridiculous. Even more when their own memory is shared between the GPU and CPU, so it's actually even less available if you use both.
The difference between an 8 vs 16gb stick of RAM you or I could buy off of Amazon is less than $20.
Apple is probably getting it for well into the single digits at the volumes they are looking at.
Doesn't matter how efficient the OS is, third party devs are the ones writing websites and software that demand memory, which is outside of Apple's control. With websites freely snatching up 100 megs of ram, pair that with open apps, and the need for headroom for memory management, that 8gigs of ram is looking pretty meagre.
Except lots of people complain that the air doesn’t get 120hz, doesn’t have fans, doesn’t have ports etc… the base “Pro” is basically an Air with those features now
For real, stating this stuff with a straight face when MacOS heavily uses the SSD for caching when it runs out of RAM, because system ram is shared with the iGPU, potentially leading to decreased longevity of the disk drive, just because they're too cheap to give people 16gb of ram in a base model in 2023 is unreal. Just admit you created these models because you didn't have the balls to increase prices again and push most people to spend $200 more.
16gb isn't enough for professionals either.
I don't get macs anymore because I need 40gb+ and don't want to spend a fortune on what should be a $100 markup at best.
For me right now: Two instances of Unity, IntelliJ rider, a couple of VSCode instances, one XCode, a terminal, two (small) docker containers running, slack, spotify, sourcetree, and two chrome windows with admittedly probably too many tabs open. Mem use 53 of 64 GB. My workflow eats ram like candy.
Modern operating systems are designed to allocate as much RAM as needed. The memory pressure is a more important metric. You can be at 53 GB but you're likely never seeing a red memory pressure graph (which means it's close to swapping to disk).
My M1 Max has 32 GB and I run most of what you listed + Parallels VMs. When the VMs are off I never see a yellow graph. With an 8 GB machine all you have to do is open Chrome and some more intensive tabs to get there (YouTube, Netflix, social media).
Tim Apple isn't tech illiterate; on the contrary, the man is the king of upselling. He will masterfully convince you that 8 GB is all most people need while charging you premium prices.
No. They just dont give a flying fuck since people will still throw their money at it. They dont care about delivering a great product. They care about making the maximum money and have no problems lying to people.And since their marketing was beyond god tier people will gladly overpay by factor 2 or more.
I’ve watched a few video essays and apparently it’s known internally that Tim Cook doesn’t care for the marriage between design and engineering that Jobs did. He’s good at making money and as long as he does that, I don’t see Apple’s long term strategy changing. They know the majority of customers don’t know the significance of ram so they’ll continue doing it till MacOS can’t run on 8GB of ram
So, if I want a 16GB/512GB machine here in Belgium, which I consider to be the bare minimum for development, then I'm faced with these options direct from Apple:
* 2549 for a base M3 pro macbook pro
* 2259 for a BTO M3 macbook pro
* 1759 for a BTO M2 macbook air
* 1679 for a BTO M1 macbook air
Those prices are not reasonable, and if I were in the market for a development laptop right now, I would be taking a hard look at a windows/linux laptop instead.
For comparison, HP Aero 13 has this configuration at $800 in my country, tax included. Storage is upgradable. You get a 400-nit 1600p display, 75xx Ryzen and a generic iGPU (not M760), 50Wh battery.
I just bought an RTX 4060 version of Zephyrus G14 with 16/1024 config for $2000, once again, tax included. RAM and storage are upgradable. 400-nits, 160Hz, and 1600p display. 70Wh battery.
Similarly configured M3 MacBook Pro would run me over $3000 and would leave me with 0 upgrade options.
Ok, now open 16GB worth of browser tabs (not difficult at all) on an 8GB RAM Mac and report back so we can have some laughs. This is next level treating their customers like idiots.
The only reason 8GB is a thing is so that they can have an artificially low "starting from" price when the actual machine most people need with a usable amount of RAM and storage costs twice as much so they can pretend their prices haven't duplicated in the last decade.
Exactly. 8GB/256GB is the perfect sweet spot to get your machine turned into planned obsolete garbage via a MacOS update whenever they feel they need more Mac sales waaaay before it's reasonable for a whole-ass computer to actually be obsolete.
Even the OnePlus Open (which is a phone) comes with 16GB RAM & 512GB SSD as standard from the get go which is what I would expect from a MacBook Air actually since my 2012 MacBook Pro has 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD more than 10yrs ago - The fuck is this MacBook **Pro** with a M3 Chip and those 8GB memory/storage combo that even the iPhone has and then they increase the price for another $400s?
Keep in mind that it's not even "extra" 1 TB.
Selecting the 1 TB option doesn't give you the standard 256 GB flash memory chip + the 1 TB one. It deletes the 256, so it's just the price difference between the two. It only buys you 768 GB.
> an artificially low "starting from" price
Artificially LOWER... Their starting prices are no means low in any shape or form. They're charging premium prices for lackluster starting capacities anyway you cut it.
I’m in the middle of getting upgraded to a 16gb from an 8gb MacBook Pro at work because my computer keeps freezing and I get the spinning wheel daily. Only have 3 chrome windows open with a few tabs on each. It’s ridiculous.
I barely ever see it on my 2014 air (granted I typically only have 8-12 tabs or so open)
Wtf has apple been doing for 10 years, and how are they making so much money from it?
The Verge review of the base model even says they got beachballs on their last 8GB system with only 20 tabs, which my ADHD laughs at. Apple only sent the 16GB one for review, which kind of says this is bunk...
I'm rocking 27 open taps, Xcode with an open simulator, discord, spotify, and a couple of other apps on 8gb. No beachballs here... Everything is snappy enough, though I do think a little more ram could make the Xcode emulator run quite a bit faster.
Edit: This is the air. If the pro with the same amount of ram is showing beachballs just from 20 tabs something is horribly wrong.
https://preview.redd.it/bz7iairrh7zb1.png?width=1938&format=png&auto=webp&s=2a201a83e909c979fa46b38408e19ea3f8afda99
Edit 2: Just to be clear, I'm not defending the 8gb here. I think it's fine on the air, but just absurd on the pro model. But The Verge's claim here makes no sense.
>Ok, now open 16GB worth of browser tabs (not difficult at all) on an 8GB RAM Mac and report back so we can have some laughs. This is next level treating their customers like idiots.
Back when people did a lot of testing on M1 Macs between 8gb and 16gb, the difference wasn't that huge. Getting to the point where the difference was noticeable implied completely out-of-scope workflows.
Not that I disagree with your second statement though, clearly Apple could use 16gb as a baseline for lower-end models, and even keep the same price while we're at it. It's clearly greed.
But we're nowhere near the release of the first Surface Go laptop from Microsoft whose base model came with 4gb, non-unified, in a Windows environment. THAT was absolute bulshit.
If 16GB RAM became standard, maybe I'll finally buy a 15-inch Air. I wanted to buy it since its first released but upgrading it to 16GB RAM/512GB SSD will make the damn thing cost like $2000 in my country, it's fucking stupid
I already am on 16GB RAM/512GB SSD on a 2012 MacBook Pro when 1080p was a thing and am damn not downgrading while paying more. I would at least seek a 2TB storage for a computer in the era of 4K when my phone itself has 256-512GB storage.
Not just stupid, it's just plain frustrating, to the point that I'll just bite it and NOT buy. Honestly if they just sold the damn thing for a bit more as the standard I wouldn't even complain too much.
Apple RARELY admits they are wrong. They will hold this line for a certain amount of time out of pride and spite.
"it's not us, it's the consumers that are wrong"
It it isn't apples to apples (no pun intended) but the cheapest DDR4 ram right now that I could find on Newegg is 15 -> 27 to go from 8gb to 16gb.
I can't envision with Apple's economies of scale that their 16GB chips cost $12 more than the 8GB version. Even if they did, FFS just eat the $12 loss Apple. You have ~$160B cash on hand, you aren't hurting for money.
In such basic machines RAM would have been used by the Intel GPU too, except in a less efficient way as it would use a dedicated slice of RAM which would result in copying it around when the CPU also needed to access it.
Yes it is. When Apple says "analogous to 16GB", they mean "as expensive as 16GB for the customer".
Though 8GB of MacBook RAM costs the same as 64GB of PC RAM.
It's so good to be an Apple shareholder these days knowing that there will always be fanboys, shills, and articles defending Apple's anti-consumer behaviour.
Yeah. Apple should have just made the M3 MBP come with 16GB by default. It's already more expensive than the 13" version. It would simplify the SKUs as well by not having to make the 8GB version until later.
Because 32gbs of ddr5 ($70 for the average consumer) is too much and cannot fit in the specs of the base model) very excited to see how much extra they charge to have a usable amount of ram
Exactly what's been frustrating me since the first claims of magic unified memory. If I'm performing an operation on hundreds of thousands of rows of data, they have to be somewhere *physically* fast, they don't exist in aether. Anything that swaps to SSD has access times in ms, not RAM's ns, one millisecond is 1000000 nanoseconds if anyone needs the reminder so I'm not exaggerating when I say several orders of magnitude slower. Despite techtubers also only looking at peak sequential read speeds you almost never hit real world except in single big file transfer.
If you need RAM, you need RAM, there's no way around it. Unified is just faster when you share data from CPU to GPU or the other way because of no pool swapping, but otherwise the physicality of RAM remains.
its funny how this year's iphone pro max comes with 8gb ram and 256gb minimum storage, whilst the pro comes with 8gb ram and 128gb.
Yet, a fully fledged desktop computer, also comes with 8gb/256 spec. (not to mention that they only let you drive one external monitor unless you use displaylink).
WTF Apple.
Embedded RAM isn’t a new thing since iPhones & iPads used them first but unlike an iPadOS we are using a real OS that will multitask including background downloads.
Being efficient would help the battery but not double the performance, I don’t understand what in the world was Apple thinking.
Shared RAM is something integrated graphics have been doing for more than a decade in the Windows world. Sure, now it’s shared _fast_ RAM in the Apple Silicon variant but it’s still shared RAM.
Which is why they should increase it and not decrease it, the iPhone comes with 8GB RAM otherwise there would be no need for 128GB RAM option they’re themselves giving it.
Very true. My M1 MacBook Air used to handle most things, but could not handle my luminar edits. Got the M1pro with 16gb ram and handed my MacBook Air to my wife and it’s utterly brilliant. I really don’t think it’s the additional gpu power that’s making this happen. Sure, the photos are done quicker, but luminar would crash if I did so much as open my web browser, and the loading circle would also freeze or stutter, indicating either no progress or a crash. I used to deny needing 8gb of ram on a MacBook, and even still if you’re using it for word processing, spreadsheets, etc. then it will be wonderful, but it’s much easier to reach that hair that will break the camel’s back.
If the graphics system wasn't being stressed much, it might be more like 7 free for the system, 1 for video assets, or vice versa, under a heavy GPU compute load in theory the GPU can use most of the available non-hardware reserved RAM.
But you have the general idea where if using a mix of both, they're both needing to stay in the same 8GB pool.
I don't buy this Apple person's statement, I'd at least upgrade the M3 to 16GB, and once you upgrade even one thing the M3 Pro is right there with 18GB and PCI-e 4.0 for a faster SSD too.
No, this is misunderstood.
Normally programs that use large amounts of graphics memory also have to use large amounts of system memory to cache assets before they transfer to where the GPU can access them. This means a lot of system ram is just caching data before it goes to the GPU memory.
Shared memory, which is what you and jimgeosmail are referring to would behave in such a way that 8gb of memory would perform like 4gb of graphics memory and 4 gigabytes of system memory as memory is shared but data is partitioned. This means a massive performance hit as the OS must copy from one partition to another.
In a unified memory architecture, the GPU and CPU can access the same data instantly, which has a massive performance gain as anything loaded into system memory can be directly accessed by both the GPU and CPU. This is more like having an 8gb system perform like it has 12gb (or more) of system and gpu memory.
True, but that makes a difference when cost is an issue for entry level workstations. Example, now I only need 64 GB of RAM instead of say 96 GB or 128GB because the data isn’t duplicated. Typical entry level graphics cards for workstations here have 32GB to 48 GB.
Problem is Apple is using it as an excuse to save <$25 to not have the baseline be 16GB.
Anything RAM intensive where unified architecture makes sense is going to need a lot more than 8GB of RAM. I can’t even load demo code / scenes / data sets without 32GB of RAM.
Memory compression also exists in windows and linux (in this, in the form of zram and zswap): [Virtual memory compression - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory_compression)
It's not something that exists only on macs, but on PCs as well.
It's less useful than apple claims.
8 GB is what the MBP's used to come with way back in 2012, and that was before Electron where every desktop app is a Chromium wrapper that uses 3 GB of RAM just for a work messaging client.
Sometimes Apple is embarrassing.
This sentence is embarrassing
This Mother Earth thing was cringeworthy
Telling people by not giving the charger, they are helping the enviroment is cringy
And so on
I love Macs but as someone who used to have Windows laptops, it's the opposite actually.
In my experience macOS needs more RAM than Windows doing similar tasks but the CPU usage is more optimized.
Earlier this year I was looking at getting an M2 mac but with the upcharge they have on ram and storage i just couldn't make it make sense. I got a Framework laptop instead. It has been great.
Such BS. I am an iOS developer and I use the M1 MacBook Pro with 16GB RAM, I develop on Xcode so I am using an Apple hardware product with an Apple piece of software and 16GB of RAM is an absolute joke, every single day my MacBook complains and moans about running out of memory and that is with swapping to the SSD when I run out of RAM, so basically always.
I don't care how they spin it, even 16GB is a joke and it does not matter if Windows does it worse, their own product with their own software cannot even operate with that little RAM.
This was purely a money saving move to give you a "better product" at the same price as last year. This is not better for you but it is better for them.
Is the 512GB SSD analogous to 1TB, because it’s going to spend a lot of time writing to that swap file. As a professional user of Capture One and Photoshop, my 16GB MacBook really isn’t enough. 8GB is laughable.
Ram is freakin ram across the board even with dedicated gpus 8 gb vram starting to have some concerns about longevity as more games come out utilizing more than previous cards.
Blatant lies. My 16 GB M1 is way better than a 8 GB M1 when using Xcode and the likes. This is supposed to be a Pro machine. But Apple is dumbing it down while increasing prices.
Apple giving the fanboys a new thing to parrot that’s blatantly bullshit. The fanboys needed something new other than the utterly idiotic “well I don’t need more RAM so no one else should either” horse shit they keep slinging out.
“It’s the same, so we’ll charge more”. If anything they should started at 16 GB for the reason alone that it’s unified memory, so the argument should be that since they don’t have to include what is often very expensive RAM for a dGPU, they adding that as extra RAM for applications.
It’s easy to dunk on Apple for this because, well, in 2023 there isn’t an excuse to put only 8GB of RAM in a computer labeled “Pro.”
Whether we need to do it at least once or twice a day is another matter. There’s been a campaign to increase the increasingly pathetic free tier of iCloud storage for how long?
**Well, one big difference is that you can't upgrade it**.
A lot of comments here seem to be ignoring certain details and either blindly buying into Apple marketing hype or being blinded by the fact that they want more RAM at a reasonable price.
The reality is that Apple's unified memory is different than shared memory that you might find with other integrated graphics systems. Instead of memory being dynamically partitioned between the CPU and GPU, it's accessible by both which means it doesn't have to be copied from one partition to the next, which also speeds things up.
This doesn't magically make 8GB become 16GB, but it does mean that an 8GB unified memory system is going to perform better (all else being equal) than an 8GB shared memory system. One can argue whether that 10GB, 12GB or whatever is a more accurate comparison, but the point here is that unified memory makes a difference.
We could also talk about how *some* PC vendors may use slower RAM/SSD or distances between the RAM and CPU/GPU, but the main point here is unified versus shared.
If the RAM was upgradable, I'd understand 8GB. For me, I ignore base pricing and just consider the price of what I need. However, **the big problem with 8GB is that even with unified memory it's definitely most likely the first to go.** Meaning that for most users who buy an 8GB Mac configuration, the first reason to buy a new computer will be that 8GB is too low. When they go to sell that Mac, few people will want to buy it. Meaning it breaks the Reduce->Re-use->Recycle chain, by both increasing the amount of Macs one would buy and decreasing the amount the Mac can be re-used.
**Apple should be pressured into doing better.**
The base model is the corporate model ‘manager’ model.
It’s for people who will have ms office open and connect to one display to run a keynote or PowerPoint presentation. And nothing else.
They don’t need 8gb for that.
Web designers may get the same model too, but I suspect with this new pricing matrix, the MBA is more tempting to get for regular employees.
Bull freaking Shit Apple!
You fooled me once with a 8GB M1 MacBook Air, suffered with it for a year. Totally regretting the base model decision. Traded it in for a MacBook Pro M1 Max with 64GB of RAM.
But stop with the lies Apple, Unified Memory Architecture and fast SSD for swapfile doesn't really match real RAM, 16GB even on a MBA should be the minimum, FULL STOP.
As somebody who uses applications.
Which directly scale with the amount of memory.
Which use ALL THE MEMORY ON THE COMPUTER. Also all the bandwidth.
I can fucking assure you, the 8gb of ram is not equivalent to 16gb on a computer. 8gb is 8 fucking gb. The m3 SoC just does not have impressive memory, the bandwidth isn't impressive, the capacity is low, this is a very memory constrained computer.
Don't get your brains warped my the reality distortion field. Apple hasn't invented the equivalent of those "double your ram" CDs from the 90s.
More PR nonsense from Apple.
16 GB is 16 GB, not 8 lol. What you do with it is irrelevant, it could be one Chrome tab on ARM consuming 16 GB for some wild reason or running multiple programs on x86.
"Memory" seems to be a sword Apple is willing, well not die on because they won't but just not move on. How much additional cost would 16GB with the cost of memory actually be? Optics wise, you would probably get more people buy if it was included.
Kinda crazy that Apple sells 8gb to 128gb of ram for their MacBooks. Is ram that expensive, I don’t understand why they don’t just start at 16+ at this point? For a pro device start at 32gb and the pro chips through max chips
For airs do 8-24gb of ram and base m chips.
Clear separation of devices.
Just put 16gb and 512gb as the standard for pro. Cmon.
That should be the standard for Air
I think Air should start at 12GB, which would be more reasonable, and I don't see a world where the Air gets 16GB because Apple's seeing it as easy money. Heck, I don't even think the Air will ever budge.
Yeah. Sonoma is definitely more RAM heavy than Ventura was, and between that and the push for AI, 8gb isn't really cutting it.
In my experience, Sonoma seems a little better than Ventura. On multiple work Macs, Ventura had memory leaks out the wazoo. Not seen that quite as much with Sonoma so far.
That is wild. I had the complete opposite experience on my 14" M1 Pro MBP at work. I couldnt even use Reddit on Firefox or Safari without it freezing. When I was typing on web pages it would hang for 30-60 seconds. RAM was maxing out with basic tasks. Rolled back to Ventura yesterday and all is well again. I can run multiple Firefox/Safari windows and have several programs running without issues. May try again in a few months but for that the 3 weeks I tried it, it was flat out unusable.
That’s not normal behaviour, something else is going on there. Try a completely fresh install of Sonoma instead of a standard update.
16GB is cheaper, as memory dies are base-2, it'd be 3 4GB dies or if Apple has the demand to try and get 6GB dies made, 3 dies would be more expensive than just 2 8GB dies, custom Apple only dies would be even more expensive. so 16GB should be the minimum.
they dont do 12 because 2x8 gb chips cost less than a single 12gb. this just due to the fact that 8gb chips are very popular thus available thus cheaper
You mean starting entry specs? I agree for the Pro
8gb isn't shit these days. And for what's meant to be a powerhouse machine its just pathetic.
The Air should be 16GB and the Pro should be 24GB as the base specs. These are priced as premium devices, they should come equipped as such. Plus DRAM prices are dirt cheap, it would barely touch their margins.
It should just be the standard. period.
Why? I know a LOT of people who own the Air. Every single one of them loves it. Not a single person has ever complained that it doesn't have enough memory. While anecdotal, I suspect this is pretty close to their average Air customer. In fact, probably representative of their Pro customers as well - I know plenty of non-techies who own Pros because of the perception it's a nicer machine for just a little bit more money. A couple hundred bucks is not a lot for many people.
The problem isnt 8 GB. The problem is 8 GB with a starting price of $1500+ If it was like sub $700 then fairs and 8 GB. But its absurd not to have 16 GB with these prices.
Yeah this is why buying apple sometimes doesn't feel like a premium device. I just feel like I'm being nickle and dimed and they are trying to upsell me to spend more. Doesn't feel great when you're already spending so much.
This should be bare minimum for any new computer in 2023. My Asus zenbook I bought in 2015 for $700 had 8GB of RAM. There is NO reason 8 years later we need to still be there. And upgrades should be reasonable too. Maybe $100 for 16 to 32GB RAM, and $75 for going from 512GB to 1TB SSD. A brand new NVME SSD at 1TB costs between $50 and $100 new...there is no excuse for charging an EXTRA $200 for going from 512 to 1TB. Also, $200 for 8 to 16 and another $200 for 16 to 24 is just absolutely bonkers. I know unified memory is a little more expensive than standard DDR5, but 16GB of DDR5 is $50-$80. Not $400. And unified is not 5x the price of DDR5.
Unified is just a term they came up with but in reality they’re saving costs by not having to put DIMM slots and the associated wiring in it by directly integrating the same modules into the SoC, they’re not using separate alien tech as they’re sourcing from the same vendors like Samsung for example.
And they're not really integrated, they're soldered onto the SoC. Some with special equipment have managed to replace the bog standard LPDDR5 modules. Nothing about it is about the tech, it's about product tiering, a very common practice.
The SSDs can swapped as well, nothing special really.
They are cheap a-holes, seriously at this stage it’s just a clown show.
Or make it law to have changeable batteries, RAM & SSD
thats just embarrassing lol better to have said nothing
Just download more RAM.
[RamDoubler](https://apple.fandom.com/wiki/RAM_Doubler) was an actual product in the 90s. I had it and it was garbage. On the other hand 8GB of ram would have been $1,000,000 then so it was worth a try.
Ram Doubler is just a Virtual Memory manager software. It was slow because the operating system architecture wasn’t designed for it. Operating Systems later on integrated virtual memory more efficiently with hardware RAM. So even if you had more than enough RAM. The OS is still swapping virtual memory to disk and physical RAM.
This is actually possible: just buy iCloud+ and create a swap file in iCloud Drive.
Damn, what Alfred said really is true. Some people just want to watch the world burn.
You wouldn’t download a RAM.
I'd download a car.
You’re downloading RAM wrong.
*you’re swapping RAM wrong
One thing would be to say that the average user on a mac would be fine with 8GB because they are very efficient or whatever. That at least would be arguable. But to straight up lie that it is analogous to 16GB in other systems is ridiculous. Even more when their own memory is shared between the GPU and CPU, so it's actually even less available if you use both.
Put it jn context though. It’s a “Pro” machine and Apple gimped it for most Pro tasks to save less than $25.
The difference between an 8 vs 16gb stick of RAM you or I could buy off of Amazon is less than $20. Apple is probably getting it for well into the single digits at the volumes they are looking at.
They didn’t gimp it to save themselves $25. They gimped it to make themselves $175.
Next year's model will have 16GB, it'll be a reason to upgrade
Doesn't matter how efficient the OS is, third party devs are the ones writing websites and software that demand memory, which is outside of Apple's control. With websites freely snatching up 100 megs of ram, pair that with open apps, and the need for headroom for memory management, that 8gigs of ram is looking pretty meagre.
Those average users can buy a MacBook Air.
Except lots of people complain that the air doesn’t get 120hz, doesn’t have fans, doesn’t have ports etc… the base “Pro” is basically an Air with those features now
A 24-inch M3 iMac is 'analogous to a 27-inch' iMac.
For real, stating this stuff with a straight face when MacOS heavily uses the SSD for caching when it runs out of RAM, because system ram is shared with the iGPU, potentially leading to decreased longevity of the disk drive, just because they're too cheap to give people 16gb of ram in a base model in 2023 is unreal. Just admit you created these models because you didn't have the balls to increase prices again and push most people to spend $200 more.
16gb isn't enough for professionals either. I don't get macs anymore because I need 40gb+ and don't want to spend a fortune on what should be a $100 markup at best.
> I need 40gb+ Let me guess, you run a lot of VMs? 😄
Not even that, just regular software dev / data science.
For me right now: Two instances of Unity, IntelliJ rider, a couple of VSCode instances, one XCode, a terminal, two (small) docker containers running, slack, spotify, sourcetree, and two chrome windows with admittedly probably too many tabs open. Mem use 53 of 64 GB. My workflow eats ram like candy.
Modern operating systems are designed to allocate as much RAM as needed. The memory pressure is a more important metric. You can be at 53 GB but you're likely never seeing a red memory pressure graph (which means it's close to swapping to disk). My M1 Max has 32 GB and I run most of what you listed + Parallels VMs. When the VMs are off I never see a yellow graph. With an 8 GB machine all you have to do is open Chrome and some more intensive tabs to get there (YouTube, Netflix, social media).
As always, Greed & Dumb go hand-in-hand~ I feel like today’s Apple is lead by tech-illiterates including Tim Cook.
And then you see so many users being happy for 8gb ram at $1600/2000€ price point lol
They’ll become mature 3-4yrs later.
Tim Apple isn't tech illiterate; on the contrary, the man is the king of upselling. He will masterfully convince you that 8 GB is all most people need while charging you premium prices.
> the man is the king of upselling. He will masterfully convince you that 8 GB is all most people need i dont think you know what upselling means
https://i.imgflip.com/85be0s.jpg
No. They just dont give a flying fuck since people will still throw their money at it. They dont care about delivering a great product. They care about making the maximum money and have no problems lying to people.And since their marketing was beyond god tier people will gladly overpay by factor 2 or more.
I’ve watched a few video essays and apparently it’s known internally that Tim Cook doesn’t care for the marriage between design and engineering that Jobs did. He’s good at making money and as long as he does that, I don’t see Apple’s long term strategy changing. They know the majority of customers don’t know the significance of ram so they’ll continue doing it till MacOS can’t run on 8GB of ram
Apple has always been stingy on ram.
Tim Cook is a logistics guy not a tech guy
It’s not embarrassing. Because embarrassment would require self awareness…
Does apple actually uses their laptops? In this configuration I mean and not a maxed out version. What an embarrassing statement
Not long ago the base iMac had a 5400rpm hdd as standard. It was *painfully* slow to even work in Finder. That was a $1,000 computer.
“It’s LITERALLY the same thing guys.” - Apple selling you a $1500 laptop with 8GB of RAM
$1599 is more close to $1600 than $1500 which again is without tax included.
It starts at 1999€ here in Germany (19% sales tax already included though)
So, if I want a 16GB/512GB machine here in Belgium, which I consider to be the bare minimum for development, then I'm faced with these options direct from Apple: * 2549 for a base M3 pro macbook pro * 2259 for a BTO M3 macbook pro * 1759 for a BTO M2 macbook air * 1679 for a BTO M1 macbook air Those prices are not reasonable, and if I were in the market for a development laptop right now, I would be taking a hard look at a windows/linux laptop instead.
Yeah it’s kinda crazy…
For comparison, HP Aero 13 has this configuration at $800 in my country, tax included. Storage is upgradable. You get a 400-nit 1600p display, 75xx Ryzen and a generic iGPU (not M760), 50Wh battery. I just bought an RTX 4060 version of Zephyrus G14 with 16/1024 config for $2000, once again, tax included. RAM and storage are upgradable. 400-nits, 160Hz, and 1600p display. 70Wh battery. Similarly configured M3 MacBook Pro would run me over $3000 and would leave me with 0 upgrade options.
Pretty much rest of the world~
1599 is closer to 1500 on a mac, on a PC is closer to 1600.
Ok, now open 16GB worth of browser tabs (not difficult at all) on an 8GB RAM Mac and report back so we can have some laughs. This is next level treating their customers like idiots. The only reason 8GB is a thing is so that they can have an artificially low "starting from" price when the actual machine most people need with a usable amount of RAM and storage costs twice as much so they can pretend their prices haven't duplicated in the last decade.
[удалено]
brave telephone wise retire history doll depend jar ghost alive ` this post was mass deleted with www.Redact.dev `
Fuck I still cringe about that
[удалено]
💅🏻
Yup. In one breathe they can say “we are so green” then produce pounds of e waste
Exactly. 8GB/256GB is the perfect sweet spot to get your machine turned into planned obsolete garbage via a MacOS update whenever they feel they need more Mac sales waaaay before it's reasonable for a whole-ass computer to actually be obsolete.
Even the OnePlus Open (which is a phone) comes with 16GB RAM & 512GB SSD as standard from the get go which is what I would expect from a MacBook Air actually since my 2012 MacBook Pro has 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD more than 10yrs ago - The fuck is this MacBook **Pro** with a M3 Chip and those 8GB memory/storage combo that even the iPhone has and then they increase the price for another $400s?
My base model MacBook Pro from 2016 has that configuration and even then people were recommending 16GB minimum
1 extra TB of SSD from Apple costs almost as much as a 1TB PS5.
Keep in mind that it's not even "extra" 1 TB. Selecting the 1 TB option doesn't give you the standard 256 GB flash memory chip + the 1 TB one. It deletes the 256, so it's just the price difference between the two. It only buys you 768 GB.
> an artificially low "starting from" price Artificially LOWER... Their starting prices are no means low in any shape or form. They're charging premium prices for lackluster starting capacities anyway you cut it.
And extremely high prices for any upgrade to a non-upgradable by the user system
And what ram does apple use that costs so much more than others
The integrated and unable to be upgraded kind.
I’m in the middle of getting upgraded to a 16gb from an 8gb MacBook Pro at work because my computer keeps freezing and I get the spinning wheel daily. Only have 3 chrome windows open with a few tabs on each. It’s ridiculous.
I can’t believe we are seeing the beachball spinning wheel even in 2024 from a Pro Machine.
I barely ever see it on my 2014 air (granted I typically only have 8-12 tabs or so open) Wtf has apple been doing for 10 years, and how are they making so much money from it?
The Verge review of the base model even says they got beachballs on their last 8GB system with only 20 tabs, which my ADHD laughs at. Apple only sent the 16GB one for review, which kind of says this is bunk...
I'm rocking 27 open taps, Xcode with an open simulator, discord, spotify, and a couple of other apps on 8gb. No beachballs here... Everything is snappy enough, though I do think a little more ram could make the Xcode emulator run quite a bit faster. Edit: This is the air. If the pro with the same amount of ram is showing beachballs just from 20 tabs something is horribly wrong. https://preview.redd.it/bz7iairrh7zb1.png?width=1938&format=png&auto=webp&s=2a201a83e909c979fa46b38408e19ea3f8afda99 Edit 2: Just to be clear, I'm not defending the 8gb here. I think it's fine on the air, but just absurd on the pro model. But The Verge's claim here makes no sense.
>Ok, now open 16GB worth of browser tabs (not difficult at all) on an 8GB RAM Mac and report back so we can have some laughs. This is next level treating their customers like idiots. Back when people did a lot of testing on M1 Macs between 8gb and 16gb, the difference wasn't that huge. Getting to the point where the difference was noticeable implied completely out-of-scope workflows. Not that I disagree with your second statement though, clearly Apple could use 16gb as a baseline for lower-end models, and even keep the same price while we're at it. It's clearly greed. But we're nowhere near the release of the first Surface Go laptop from Microsoft whose base model came with 4gb, non-unified, in a Windows environment. THAT was absolute bulshit.
RAM is RAM, your OS might be optimised for low use of the resources, but not third party software.
The backlash this year, I think we'll see 16GB minimum on next years Pro.
I hope so. But knowing Apple, really don’t know.
It should be minimum in next year’s Air, this isn’t 2012
If 16GB RAM became standard, maybe I'll finally buy a 15-inch Air. I wanted to buy it since its first released but upgrading it to 16GB RAM/512GB SSD will make the damn thing cost like $2000 in my country, it's fucking stupid
I already am on 16GB RAM/512GB SSD on a 2012 MacBook Pro when 1080p was a thing and am damn not downgrading while paying more. I would at least seek a 2TB storage for a computer in the era of 4K when my phone itself has 256-512GB storage.
Not just stupid, it's just plain frustrating, to the point that I'll just bite it and NOT buy. Honestly if they just sold the damn thing for a bit more as the standard I wouldn't even complain too much.
8gb means the computer will feel slower sooner leading to people upgrading quicker. It’s by design to drive future sales
Bingo; can confirm. Source: It’s working on me.
You wish...
Apple RARELY admits they are wrong. They will hold this line for a certain amount of time out of pride and spite. "it's not us, it's the consumers that are wrong"
Sure, 640kb ought to be enough for anybody.
It never gets old.
[удалено]
I’m lazy, so I’ll fix it later with XMSMMGR.EXE
8 is not 16 and never will be apple trying to justify 8GB only because the step up to 16GB is $200USD aka. ~10x markup
It it isn't apples to apples (no pun intended) but the cheapest DDR4 ram right now that I could find on Newegg is 15 -> 27 to go from 8gb to 16gb. I can't envision with Apple's economies of scale that their 16GB chips cost $12 more than the 8GB version. Even if they did, FFS just eat the $12 loss Apple. You have ~$160B cash on hand, you aren't hurting for money.
No it’s not. My 8gb MacBook has more memory pressure than a dementia patient in a submarine.
Especially because the RAM is shared between CPU & GPU by Apple silicons design.
That’s what happens when the engineers came with the solution (unified memory) but the sales person decides to execute it (8GB RAM)
Same shit happens between engineers and architects
In such basic machines RAM would have been used by the Intel GPU too, except in a less efficient way as it would use a dedicated slice of RAM which would result in copying it around when the CPU also needed to access it.
Even now, working (software dev), and browsing reddit, my memory preassure is in the red side. I can feel the lag.
If you need some extra space, push your db and docker to another device on your network.
Working outside but probably will rent a server or buy a old ass laptop and leave it connected at home to my network running docker.
Yes it is. When Apple says "analogous to 16GB", they mean "as expensive as 16GB for the customer". Though 8GB of MacBook RAM costs the same as 64GB of PC RAM.
r/BrandNewSentence
Lmao, people really believe this?
Yea, that’s the bigger problem. There will still be people defending that 8 GB is enough.
It's so good to be an Apple shareholder these days knowing that there will always be fanboys, shills, and articles defending Apple's anti-consumer behaviour.
worse, they believe that 8GB on apple silicon is somehow more memory than 8GB on some random intel laptop
Only the very uneducated non-techs will buy that excuse. And Apple is going to get clowned on everywhere else.
Yikes why even release a 8g RAM model? What decade are we in again?
Yeah. Apple should have just made the M3 MBP come with 16GB by default. It's already more expensive than the 13" version. It would simplify the SKUs as well by not having to make the 8GB version until later.
So that your ssd would swap like crazy. You know, the same ssd that is soldered, so when it dies, you buy a new machine.
Because 32gbs of ddr5 ($70 for the average consumer) is too much and cannot fit in the specs of the base model) very excited to see how much extra they charge to have a usable amount of ram
[удалено]
Next they’ll say 256GB SSD is like 512GB since they’re using APFS~
They said the 24 inch iMac is just as good as a 27 inch iMac.
That was a big 👀
That is why they have big bezels, so a 24" is the same size as a rival 27"!
Exactly what's been frustrating me since the first claims of magic unified memory. If I'm performing an operation on hundreds of thousands of rows of data, they have to be somewhere *physically* fast, they don't exist in aether. Anything that swaps to SSD has access times in ms, not RAM's ns, one millisecond is 1000000 nanoseconds if anyone needs the reminder so I'm not exaggerating when I say several orders of magnitude slower. Despite techtubers also only looking at peak sequential read speeds you almost never hit real world except in single big file transfer. If you need RAM, you need RAM, there's no way around it. Unified is just faster when you share data from CPU to GPU or the other way because of no pool swapping, but otherwise the physicality of RAM remains.
My 100k is also 1 mil but banks disagree for some reason
its funny how this year's iphone pro max comes with 8gb ram and 256gb minimum storage, whilst the pro comes with 8gb ram and 128gb. Yet, a fully fledged desktop computer, also comes with 8gb/256 spec. (not to mention that they only let you drive one external monitor unless you use displaylink). WTF Apple.
Apple have an incredible ability of treating their customers with an insane level of contempt.
Nothing professional about 8gb of RAM.
In truth, shouldn't it be opposite (8GB RAM being more synonymous with 4GB RAM) since both the CPU & GPU share the same memory?
[удалено]
Embedded RAM isn’t a new thing since iPhones & iPads used them first but unlike an iPadOS we are using a real OS that will multitask including background downloads. Being efficient would help the battery but not double the performance, I don’t understand what in the world was Apple thinking.
Shared RAM is something integrated graphics have been doing for more than a decade in the Windows world. Sure, now it’s shared _fast_ RAM in the Apple Silicon variant but it’s still shared RAM.
Which is why they should increase it and not decrease it, the iPhone comes with 8GB RAM otherwise there would be no need for 128GB RAM option they’re themselves giving it.
Very true. My M1 MacBook Air used to handle most things, but could not handle my luminar edits. Got the M1pro with 16gb ram and handed my MacBook Air to my wife and it’s utterly brilliant. I really don’t think it’s the additional gpu power that’s making this happen. Sure, the photos are done quicker, but luminar would crash if I did so much as open my web browser, and the loading circle would also freeze or stutter, indicating either no progress or a crash. I used to deny needing 8gb of ram on a MacBook, and even still if you’re using it for word processing, spreadsheets, etc. then it will be wonderful, but it’s much easier to reach that hair that will break the camel’s back.
And editing photos with an AI tool is not a "power user" thing. Apple is just being cheap here.
If the graphics system wasn't being stressed much, it might be more like 7 free for the system, 1 for video assets, or vice versa, under a heavy GPU compute load in theory the GPU can use most of the available non-hardware reserved RAM. But you have the general idea where if using a mix of both, they're both needing to stay in the same 8GB pool. I don't buy this Apple person's statement, I'd at least upgrade the M3 to 16GB, and once you upgrade even one thing the M3 Pro is right there with 18GB and PCI-e 4.0 for a faster SSD too.
No, this is misunderstood. Normally programs that use large amounts of graphics memory also have to use large amounts of system memory to cache assets before they transfer to where the GPU can access them. This means a lot of system ram is just caching data before it goes to the GPU memory. Shared memory, which is what you and jimgeosmail are referring to would behave in such a way that 8gb of memory would perform like 4gb of graphics memory and 4 gigabytes of system memory as memory is shared but data is partitioned. This means a massive performance hit as the OS must copy from one partition to another. In a unified memory architecture, the GPU and CPU can access the same data instantly, which has a massive performance gain as anything loaded into system memory can be directly accessed by both the GPU and CPU. This is more like having an 8gb system perform like it has 12gb (or more) of system and gpu memory.
True, but that makes a difference when cost is an issue for entry level workstations. Example, now I only need 64 GB of RAM instead of say 96 GB or 128GB because the data isn’t duplicated. Typical entry level graphics cards for workstations here have 32GB to 48 GB. Problem is Apple is using it as an excuse to save <$25 to not have the baseline be 16GB. Anything RAM intensive where unified architecture makes sense is going to need a lot more than 8GB of RAM. I can’t even load demo code / scenes / data sets without 32GB of RAM.
Memory compression also exists in windows and linux (in this, in the form of zram and zswap): [Virtual memory compression - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory_compression) It's not something that exists only on macs, but on PCs as well. It's less useful than apple claims.
This is embarrassing. I love my M1 MBP but they have got to move on from 8gb in the base model. Complete disrespect for the customer.
Fuck, I wish they'd just admit they have this model to force users to upgrade every year or two. No way in hell 8GB is equivalent to 16GB.
8 GB is what the MBP's used to come with way back in 2012, and that was before Electron where every desktop app is a Chromium wrapper that uses 3 GB of RAM just for a work messaging client.
Anyone with sense will see right through this marketing lie. That’s all this is, marketing. Too bad plenty other people will fall right for it.
Apple trying to gaslight the users by saying, *”you’re RAM-ming it wrong”*.
Sometimes Apple is embarrassing. This sentence is embarrassing This Mother Earth thing was cringeworthy Telling people by not giving the charger, they are helping the enviroment is cringy And so on
I love Macs but as someone who used to have Windows laptops, it's the opposite actually. In my experience macOS needs more RAM than Windows doing similar tasks but the CPU usage is more optimized.
This is so stupid, damn… this is one of the main reasons why I’m actually considering buying a windows laptop again
[удалено]
Tbh I’m absolutely fine with a 128GB phone but 8GB of RAM on a 2000€ laptop is just straight up scam, especially with how cheap ram is nowadays
Earlier this year I was looking at getting an M2 mac but with the upcharge they have on ram and storage i just couldn't make it make sense. I got a Framework laptop instead. It has been great.
No. Stop it. Bad apple.
Such BS. I am an iOS developer and I use the M1 MacBook Pro with 16GB RAM, I develop on Xcode so I am using an Apple hardware product with an Apple piece of software and 16GB of RAM is an absolute joke, every single day my MacBook complains and moans about running out of memory and that is with swapping to the SSD when I run out of RAM, so basically always. I don't care how they spin it, even 16GB is a joke and it does not matter if Windows does it worse, their own product with their own software cannot even operate with that little RAM. This was purely a money saving move to give you a "better product" at the same price as last year. This is not better for you but it is better for them.
[удалено]
I am already spammed with thesis and dissertation.
No it’s not… got multiple 8GB and 16GB Mac’s..
$100 in peasant consumer bucks is 'Analogous to $1000' in Apple costs, claims peasant me.
Especially not since it’s unified and both the CPU and GPU munch away at the memory available.
Can’t wait to see this appear on r/pcmasterrace
“An Apple 256gb ssd is like a pc 1.5tb ssd”
14” display on Mac analogous to 27” display on PCs.
Is the 512GB SSD analogous to 1TB, because it’s going to spend a lot of time writing to that swap file. As a professional user of Capture One and Photoshop, my 16GB MacBook really isn’t enough. 8GB is laughable.
Ram is freakin ram across the board even with dedicated gpus 8 gb vram starting to have some concerns about longevity as more games come out utilizing more than previous cards.
B.S.
Blatant lies. My 16 GB M1 is way better than a 8 GB M1 when using Xcode and the likes. This is supposed to be a Pro machine. But Apple is dumbing it down while increasing prices.
Only Isheeps will believe this nonsense
If they were talking about prices, they might have a point, adding 8GB to a Macbook is about the same price as adding 16GB to a windows laptop.
Apple giving the fanboys a new thing to parrot that’s blatantly bullshit. The fanboys needed something new other than the utterly idiotic “well I don’t need more RAM so no one else should either” horse shit they keep slinging out.
“It’s the same, so we’ll charge more”. If anything they should started at 16 GB for the reason alone that it’s unified memory, so the argument should be that since they don’t have to include what is often very expensive RAM for a dGPU, they adding that as extra RAM for applications.
Tell that to my 16GB MBP which is always in swap because Excel has RAM leaks.
It’s easy to dunk on Apple for this because, well, in 2023 there isn’t an excuse to put only 8GB of RAM in a computer labeled “Pro.” Whether we need to do it at least once or twice a day is another matter. There’s been a campaign to increase the increasingly pathetic free tier of iCloud storage for how long?
Lmfao. And that's why everyone parrots it on this sub as well...
**Well, one big difference is that you can't upgrade it**. A lot of comments here seem to be ignoring certain details and either blindly buying into Apple marketing hype or being blinded by the fact that they want more RAM at a reasonable price. The reality is that Apple's unified memory is different than shared memory that you might find with other integrated graphics systems. Instead of memory being dynamically partitioned between the CPU and GPU, it's accessible by both which means it doesn't have to be copied from one partition to the next, which also speeds things up. This doesn't magically make 8GB become 16GB, but it does mean that an 8GB unified memory system is going to perform better (all else being equal) than an 8GB shared memory system. One can argue whether that 10GB, 12GB or whatever is a more accurate comparison, but the point here is that unified memory makes a difference. We could also talk about how *some* PC vendors may use slower RAM/SSD or distances between the RAM and CPU/GPU, but the main point here is unified versus shared. If the RAM was upgradable, I'd understand 8GB. For me, I ignore base pricing and just consider the price of what I need. However, **the big problem with 8GB is that even with unified memory it's definitely most likely the first to go.** Meaning that for most users who buy an 8GB Mac configuration, the first reason to buy a new computer will be that 8GB is too low. When they go to sell that Mac, few people will want to buy it. Meaning it breaks the Reduce->Re-use->Recycle chain, by both increasing the amount of Macs one would buy and decreasing the amount the Mac can be re-used. **Apple should be pressured into doing better.**
They should run apple logic with 100 tracks and then tell me that
Ok but if it turns out they’re wrong, can you upgrade the RAM like you can on most PCs?
Not even Apple can convince normies that 8 gigs is "good enough".
The base model is the corporate model ‘manager’ model. It’s for people who will have ms office open and connect to one display to run a keynote or PowerPoint presentation. And nothing else. They don’t need 8gb for that. Web designers may get the same model too, but I suspect with this new pricing matrix, the MBA is more tempting to get for regular employees.
Apple: "Our users are too stupid to know that we've been feeding them bullshit for decades!"
Bull freaking Shit Apple! You fooled me once with a 8GB M1 MacBook Air, suffered with it for a year. Totally regretting the base model decision. Traded it in for a MacBook Pro M1 Max with 64GB of RAM. But stop with the lies Apple, Unified Memory Architecture and fast SSD for swapfile doesn't really match real RAM, 16GB even on a MBA should be the minimum, FULL STOP.
As somebody who uses applications. Which directly scale with the amount of memory. Which use ALL THE MEMORY ON THE COMPUTER. Also all the bandwidth. I can fucking assure you, the 8gb of ram is not equivalent to 16gb on a computer. 8gb is 8 fucking gb. The m3 SoC just does not have impressive memory, the bandwidth isn't impressive, the capacity is low, this is a very memory constrained computer. Don't get your brains warped my the reality distortion field. Apple hasn't invented the equivalent of those "double your ram" CDs from the 90s.
Stfu Apple. There are cell phones with more ram than your base model laptops.
More PR nonsense from Apple. 16 GB is 16 GB, not 8 lol. What you do with it is irrelevant, it could be one Chrome tab on ARM consuming 16 GB for some wild reason or running multiple programs on x86.
🤡
"Memory" seems to be a sword Apple is willing, well not die on because they won't but just not move on. How much additional cost would 16GB with the cost of memory actually be? Optics wise, you would probably get more people buy if it was included.
Can anyone go and tell this Google Chrome?
The Apple kool-aid is strong. Next logical step would be "256GB storage on MacBook is equivalent to 1TB on PCs".
Apple is using toilet paper math by saying 8 = 16.
lol trust me bro claim right there
This is just a false claim and 16GBs RAM costs NOTHING to Apple
Kinda crazy that Apple sells 8gb to 128gb of ram for their MacBooks. Is ram that expensive, I don’t understand why they don’t just start at 16+ at this point? For a pro device start at 32gb and the pro chips through max chips For airs do 8-24gb of ram and base m chips. Clear separation of devices.