It boggles my mind that people don’t understand basic economics. There so many things wrong with that line of thinking.
And what qualifies you to talk about economics? I have my business degree and to complete it, took many economics courses. What are your qualifications?
So none of the more negative posts can disprove that the basic Apple premise that 8GB is as effective as double that in practice. You can be sure that Apple has data to back up that claim, although it would probably have been wise to put out a slide or two showing that instead of just talking about it. As far as the price, of course it's expensive, since the computers are SoC, a technology that holds the HD/SSD data as well as the RAM data on a chip, which becomes instantaneously available compared to separate RAM from the old days. But apparently the market doesn't get this yet.
As far as the constant refrain about iMacs filling landfills, I tend not to believe it as our business has several 2012 models working exactly as they always did. Until they can no longer access the web, the server, the printers, or get replacement hard drives, they are valued members and not hitting a landfill any time soon. Besides, when the end times come for them, my state recycles electronic waste, as I'm sure others do as well.
This is an echo chamber. Basic common sense proves that 8GB is not 16GB. You're just all circle jerking each other and those of us who aren't sheep are laughing.
There is plenty of evidence that what Apple is saying is true:
8GB vs 16GB M1 MacBook Pro - How much RAM do you NEED?! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PP1_4wek4nI/ The reviewer didn't think that it was worth upgrading from 8GB to 16GB unless you are a professional photographer editing huge RAW images.
Opinion: Is the base MacBook Air M1/8GB powerful enough for you? https://9to5mac.com/2020/11/18/opinion-is-the-base-macbook-air-m1-8gb-powerful-enough-for-you/ "I think the clear answer is that, for the vast majority of people, even for those who lean on the “professional” side of laptop multitasking with several apps and a dozen browser tabs and multiple types of media playing at the same time, the base models of these computers with 8GB of RAM are going to be enough. Not only are they enough — it’s seriously difficult to get them to slow down."
I always laugh when I see or hear someone describe a base machine with 8 GB of main memory and a 256 GB solid state storage as if it’s a “kiddie” computer only suitable for web surfing and email. That’s crazy talk.
A closer rendition of a kiddie computer is a Raspberry Pi with 4 GB of RAM and a 16 GB micro SD card. But even with this type of setup and an all-in price less than $100 w/o monitor (but any TV will suffice) these little computers are embarrassingly effective at many of the same use cases that are unrealistically assumed to be a good fit for a $1000 base configured Mac.
Like many others have noted, Apple Silicon based Macs are no slouches, even at the base level configuration. I would not feel encumbered having to use a base level M1 Mac mini for software development.
Some things, like live debugging or doing full local rebuilds would be slower on an 8 GB Mac compared to a higher spec Mac, but it wouldn’t be crippling from a productivity standpoint because the longest poles in my software development process are the times I spend thinking, organizing my thoughts, and deciding how to proceed to the point where I start physically interacting with the development environment, like typing or setting the right breakpoints.
In other words, every computer I’ve ever used spends most of its cycles waiting for me. If my computer could talk it would mostly be asking “Is he still there?”
For the most part, every increase in computing performance has been offset by increasing demands by the operating system, applications, tools, and always running bloat. The wow factor doesn’t last forever and you always normalize to the new baseline.
To be honest, the biggest step-increase in software developer productivity that I’ve ever experienced is having multiple monitors and having much faster storage, I.e., solid state drives. If I had to choose between stepping up one level on the choice of CPU, increasing memory, increasing storage space, or adding a second monitor I would choose the second monitor assuming the starting point was sufficient for my needs. Of course I’d want everything plus a fast SSD.
Buying a new computer is all about maximizing the things you find most essential at a cost you can afford, with consideration for future needs. But I’ll never buy into the notion that any Apple Silicon Mac is a lightweight machine only suited for trivial tasks. It’s not for everyone, but a vast majority of computer users will find even the base machine configurations to be more than satisfactory.
As someone who does a lot of virtualization (Linux and Windows virtual machines in VMWare, Parallels etc.) I can say that 8 GB of RAM on on the latest, fastest Apple CPU definitely is not analogous to 16 GB RAM on an 8th generation Core i3 from 2017. The M3 would run A LOT faster, but I would still only be able to run 1 Windows VM (requires 4 GB RAM) and 1 Linux VM (requires 2 GB RAM if I want to use the desktop). Meanwhile the 6 year old Core i3 chip would be as slow as molasses in comparison, but the 16 GB RAM allows me to run 2 Windows VMs and 3 Linux VMs, which lets me do load balancing, clustering, pentesting, routing, DHCP, web and email client/server and a bunch of other stuff. Meaning that for an IT professional, a 2017 MacBook Air with 16 GB RAM would do just fine. I could install VirtualBox on it and get right to work. But for me the new M3 MacBook Pro would be completely worthless. I wouldn't even be able to use it to take online bootcamp type courses at Linux Academy, Udemy or what have you. And that is just a simple example, really. The absolute truth: for lots of tasks and applications, RAM is as important as speed or even more so. There are plenty of servers in data centers - cloud data centers even - that the M2 Ultra and the M3 Max would crush in single core performance and even beat in multicore performance. The ones that perform front-end tasks for e-commerce sites are an example. But those servers have a ton of RAM. So no, you can't take one of those out of the rack and plug in a 16" MacBook Pro to replace it.
Honestly, what Apple needs to do is bring back the MacBook. Remember the 12" MacBook from 2015? Or the original MacBook from 10 years earlier? Bring back the MacBook as an entry level $700 device. Limit the entry level chip - the M4 and whatever going forward - and its 8 GB RAM to the MacBook, MacBook Air, iMac and Mac Mini. For the MacBook Pro and the iMac Pro should only have the M4 Pro, M4 Max and M4 Ultra meaning 16 GB RAM at minimum. The Mac Studio would have the M4 Max and M4 Ultra. The Mac Pro would have the M4 Ultra and M4 Extreme.
It isn't that hard, people. Apple just has to want to do it.
This sounds like a benchmarking opportunity.
I'd love to see someone come up with some "Pro" workflows and run it on the various M1/M2/M3 cpu and memory configurations.
Ha. That would be easy. Just use AutoCAD. For which 8 GB RAM is the absolute minimum. And AutoCAD, while a venerable industry standard, is just a basic engineering application. The more sophisticated and specialized applications for engineering and design that run full system simulations, i.e. ECAD and MCAD like Solidworks, use way more. And get this: SAS, a statistical program, needs 4 GB for each CPU core. Even if you were to limit it to the performance cores for Apple Silicon, that still means 16 GB RAM.
Most benchmarking doesn't run truly heavy duty applications. They just run canned tests of routine user-friendly stuff in rapid succession. Like to test graphics capability they'll run Handbrake on a short video clip. You won't see them render a 1 hour cartoon in Maya or Synfig Studio.
Also, an interesting note that no one seems to mention is that when Apple was marketing how their MacBook Air M2 is faster than Intel laptops... if you look at how they conducted their tests ... they literally compared the baseline Macs with 8GB with 256GB SSD against PCs with 16GB RAM with 512GB SSD!
"Testing was conducted by Apple in April and May 2023 using production 13-inch MacBook Air systems with Apple M2, 8-core CPU, 8-core GPU, 8GB of RAM, and 256GB SSD, preproduction 15-inch MacBook Air systems with Apple M2, 8-core CPU, 10-core GPU, 8GB of RAM, and 256GB SSD as well as Intel Core i7-based PC systems with Intel Iris Xe Graphics, 16GB of RAM, 512GB SSD, and the latest version of Windows 11 available at the time of testing."
https://www.apple.com/macbook-air-13-and-15-m2/#footnote-6
People complain about how Apple is little on RAM on iPhones when real life usage show no effect at all despite Androids needing TWICE MORE RAM to just function.
Also, an interesting note that no one seems to mention is that when Apple was marketing how their MacBook Air M2 is faster than Intel laptops... if you look at how they conducted their tests ... they literally compared the baseline Macs with 8GB with 256GB SSD against PCs with 16GB RAM with 512GB SSD!
"Testing was conducted by Apple in April and May 2023 using production 13-inch MacBook Air systems with Apple M2, 8-core CPU, 8-core GPU, 8GB of RAM, and 256GB SSD, preproduction 15-inch MacBook Air systems with Apple M2, 8-core CPU, 10-core GPU, 8GB of RAM, and 256GB SSD as well as Intel Core i7-based PC systems with Intel Iris Xe Graphics, 16GB of RAM, 512GB SSD, and the latest version of Windows 11 available at the time of testing."
https://www.apple.com/macbook-air-13-and-15-m2/#footnote-6
People complain about how Apple is little on RAM on iPhones when real life usage show no effect at all despite Androids needing TWICE MORE RAM to just function.
You are 0-2. The minimum RAM for an Android phone is 2 GB. Most Android phones sold have 4 GB. Also, it isn't merely about speed. See above: lots of "pro" programs need 8 GB - or more - of RAM just to run. Which is why a lot of the people defending this focus on stuff like web browsing, basic productivity apps like Microsoft Office plus low-to-moderate RAM tasks like front end scripting (HTML and Javascript), app development and video editing for YouTube. No one is talking about 3D animation, software development/engineering or high resolution photo editing.
Another thing: that 16 GB RAM Core i7 that you mentioned doesn't cost $1600! It actually only costs $900! Not a bargain basement made out of plastic deal either but a serious device that companies buy their workers like a Lenovo ThinkBook. No, $1600 gets you an Intel Core i9 HP Envy with an Nvidia RTX 4060 card. And if you don't mind a little plastic and a lesser known brand, it gets you an Asus Creator Q with 24 GB RAM, 1 TB SSD and an Nvidia RTX 3050 card. Personally not a fan of that RTX 3050 but you get my drift.
Finally, Intel will - to a degree - emulate Apple's unified memory using their "tiles" concept. They aired a trial balloon in a press release but pulled it real fast when they got some pushback, but it is coming. Even if it doesn't arrive in December with 14th gen you can bet they are working OEMs hard to sell the idea for 15th gen. Won't be as fast as unified memory but it will mean a real performance boost.
As someone who does a lot of virtualization (Linux and Windows virtual machines in VMWare, Parallels etc.) I can say that 8 GB of RAM on on the latest, fastest Apple CPU definitely is not analogous to 16 GB RAM on an 8th generation Core i3 from 2017.
I read both posts... but didnt see anywhere where you actually owned a base M1/M2 machine to test your "theory".
A lot of people here are still stuck in the "intel" mindset. I get it hard to shake. I do tech consulting for graphic designers, and over the last 15 years if I had a nickel for every time I said "theres no such thing as too much ram" id be a billionaire.
Happily i dont have to anymore. I moved 15% of my older basic intel clients to M1 minis with 8/512 setups... dual screens + fast SSD external working drives... all loving the speed. those with higher demands went to 16 GB.... many came from 32 GB ram setups. No issues. Watch for refurbs. 16/512 M1 minis were $700. M2 shoudl be th4e same.
Considering the price difference between 8gb and 16g why are we having this discussion? Just put 16gb and give up a few dollars in profits considering they will be buying a lot more 16gb chips, the cost difference will be marginal at best
As someone who does a lot of virtualization (Linux and Windows virtual machines in VMWare, Parallels etc.) I can say that 8 GB of RAM on on the latest, fastest Apple CPU definitely is not analogous to 16 GB RAM on an 8th generation Core i3 from 2017.
I read both posts... but didnt see anywhere where you actually owned a base M1/M2 machine to test your "theory".
A lot of people here are still stuck in the "intel" mindset. I get it hard to shake. I do tech consulting for graphic designers, and over the last 15 years if I had a nickel for every time I said "theres no such thing as too much ram" id be a billionaire.
Happily i dont have to anymore. I moved 15% of my older basic intel clients to M1 minis with 8/512 setups... dual screens + fast SSD external working drives... all loving the speed. those with higher demands went to 16 GB.... many came from 32 GB ram setups. No issues. Watch for refurbs. 16/512 M1 minis were $700. M2 shoudl be th4e same.
First off, I own an M2 Mac Mini. Second, what "theory"? Virtualization is when you use hypervisor software run a virtual computer on your computer hardware and OS. No matter what CPU, architecture, OS, manufacturer etc. you are talking about it is the same because the requirements of the operating system that you are running doesn't change. So you are still going to need 4 GB of RAM to run a Windows 11 VM. You are still going to need 2 GB of RAM to run a Linux VM. Period. Otherwise, your virtual computer's OS will run out of resources just as it would if you were to install the OS on physical hardware that's insufficient to handle the specs. If you don't believe me, go to ServeTheHome.com. They promote low end - meaning slow - hardware that supports a lot of RAM for virtualization servers all the time. A lot of people buy old - meaning slow - machines off Newegg and Ebay to use as virtualization servers because they have a ton of RAM. But hey, don't take my word for it. You install Windows on VirtualBox or VMWare Player and configure it to use 2 GB of RAM instead of 4 GB because "RAM on a Mac is 'effectively' twice that on a PC." See if your Windows VM even boots up.
Even better. Get a photo editor, whether Krita, GIMP, Inkscape or whatever (they are all free). Go download one of those high resolution images from NASA: https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/target/Earth Try to edit one of those bad boys with 8 GB RAM. Don't worry! Apple's executives claim that it is just as good as doing so with 16 GB RAM, so it will work out fine!
It is worth noting, that Adobe recommends 16gb ram for Lightroom on both windows and mac.
Apparently there are some issues with Adobe's memory management with apple silicon. If this is resolved, then I guess Apple might be correct!
Adobe. *sigh*. They go their own way on lots of things - they also got caught flatfooted on the switch to Intel. That part where Jobs reminded everyone that they'd been telling devs to use Xcode for years, so now you can flip a switch on the compiler? Yeah, Adobe was rolling their own and spent the better part of a year before they had PS native on Intel. For contrast, watch this ( skip to the portion from 11:00 - 16:00)
Yes. And the frustrating thing is, that so many "creatives" like myself use Adobe software almost all day, every day, and many of us choose MacOS over Windows to run it on. I would even go as far as to suggest that Adobe users are the core user base of Macbook Pros.
Considering how close Apple and Adobe's relationship has been over the years (pretty much since the invention of postscript), and they were at the M1 launch (IIRC) espousing how easy it was to transition software to Apple Silicon AND their own system requirements recommend at least 16GB ram for most of the creative suite. There is no sense in releasing a Macbook with the Pro moniker with only 8GB ram.
This sounds like a benchmarking opportunity.
I'd love to see someone come up with some "Pro" workflows and run it on the various M1/M2/M3 cpu and memory configurations.
Agreed, but it seems that the days of creative independent benchmarking are behind us. The day Anand quit his website and went to work for Apple was the beginning of the end for creative independent benchmarking on the web.
Not if you run an apple product called mainstage. It also struggles using gig performer.
I trust Apple less and less, let alone the Chinese government. Hence why I don't use one of their Chinese made over priced phones, which are 5 years behind.
Regular people do not load 40GB of RAW picture(s) image on their laptop or desktop. Regular people do not compile application and test complex enterprise software.
Why the professional people complain about RAM size? Either your company willing to pay what they need or your own business can paid off higher RAM upgrade. It is business expenses.
If regular people think they need more RAM then they still stuck on old windows experience.
Don't get me wrong.. I don't like the way Apple charge RAM and SSD upgrade price. It should drop 25-50% from current price. On the other hand, I am Apple stockholder and with my dividend from Apple cover all my Apple products purchase.
Far as I can see Apple price upgrade structure made as if you need specific model to upgrade then you should consider bump up different model instead.
Like Mac mini upgrade max 32GB RAM with M2 Pro, 512GB SSD, 10G NIC ended up $1799. However, Studio with M2 Max with same other spec ended up $200 more - $1999. If you want Mini with M2 Pro with 12 core than $300 more - $2099.
So Apple create price structure to bump up the model not individual options. They try to not make too many CTO model. Order to doing so, upgrade option price hike.
The memory compression really IS a remarkable feature. It literally doubled the useful life of my MacBook Pro at the time it was introduced — I was ready to replace it, and suddenly heavy productions that had stopped my machine in its tracks (heh, pun intended) started working fine again, literally overnight.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PP1_4wek4nI/
The reviewer didn't think that it was worth upgrading from 8GB to 16GB unless you are a professional photographer editing huge RAW images.
Opinion: Is the base MacBook Air M1/8GB powerful enough for you?
https://9to5mac.com/2020/11/18/opinion-is-the-base-macbook-air-m1-8gb-powerful-enough-for-you/
"I think the clear answer is that, for the vast majority of people, even for those who lean on the “professional” side of laptop multitasking with several apps and a dozen browser tabs and multiple types of media playing at the same time, the base models of these computers with 8GB of RAM are going to be enough. Not only are they enough — it’s seriously difficult to get them to slow down."
For the most part, every increase in computing performance has been offset by increasing demands by the operating system, applications, tools, and always running bloat. The wow factor doesn’t last forever and you always normalize to the new baseline.
Buying a new computer is all about maximizing the things you find most essential at a cost you can afford, with consideration for future needs. But I’ll never buy into the notion that any Apple Silicon Mac is a lightweight machine only suited for trivial tasks. It’s not for everyone, but a vast majority of computer users will find even the base machine configurations to be more than satisfactory.
Honestly, what Apple needs to do is bring back the MacBook. Remember the 12" MacBook from 2015? Or the original MacBook from 10 years earlier? Bring back the MacBook as an entry level $700 device. Limit the entry level chip - the M4 and whatever going forward - and its 8 GB RAM to the MacBook, MacBook Air, iMac and Mac Mini. For the MacBook Pro and the iMac Pro should only have the M4 Pro, M4 Max and M4 Ultra meaning 16 GB RAM at minimum. The Mac Studio would have the M4 Max and M4 Ultra. The Mac Pro would have the M4 Ultra and M4 Extreme.
It isn't that hard, people. Apple just has to want to do it.
Most benchmarking doesn't run truly heavy duty applications. They just run canned tests of routine user-friendly stuff in rapid succession. Like to test graphics capability they'll run Handbrake on a short video clip. You won't see them render a 1 hour cartoon in Maya or Synfig Studio.
"Testing was conducted by Apple in April and May 2023 using production 13-inch MacBook Air systems with Apple M2, 8-core CPU, 8-core GPU, 8GB of RAM, and 256GB SSD, preproduction 15-inch MacBook Air systems with Apple M2, 8-core CPU, 10-core GPU, 8GB of RAM, and 256GB SSD as well as Intel Core i7-based PC systems with Intel Iris Xe Graphics, 16GB of RAM, 512GB SSD, and the latest version of Windows 11 available at the time of testing." https://www.apple.com/macbook-air-13-and-15-m2/#footnote-6
Also, it isn't merely about speed. See above: lots of "pro" programs need 8 GB - or more - of RAM just to run. Which is why a lot of the people defending this focus on stuff like web browsing, basic productivity apps like Microsoft Office plus low-to-moderate RAM tasks like front end scripting (HTML and Javascript), app development and video editing for YouTube. No one is talking about 3D animation, software development/engineering or high resolution photo editing.
Another thing: that 16 GB RAM Core i7 that you mentioned doesn't cost $1600! It actually only costs $900! Not a bargain basement made out of plastic deal either but a serious device that companies buy their workers like a Lenovo ThinkBook. No, $1600 gets you an Intel Core i9 HP Envy with an Nvidia RTX 4060 card. And if you don't mind a little plastic and a lesser known brand, it gets you an Asus Creator Q with 24 GB RAM, 1 TB SSD and an Nvidia RTX 3050 card. Personally not a fan of that RTX 3050 but you get my drift.
Finally, Intel will - to a degree - emulate Apple's unified memory using their "tiles" concept. They aired a trial balloon in a press release but pulled it real fast when they got some pushback, but it is coming. Even if it doesn't arrive in December with 14th gen you can bet they are working OEMs hard to sell the idea for 15th gen. Won't be as fast as unified memory but it will mean a real performance boost.
why are we having this discussion?
Just put 16gb and give up a few dollars in profits
considering they will be buying a lot more 16gb chips, the cost difference will be marginal at best
Second, what "theory"? Virtualization is when you use hypervisor software run a virtual computer on your computer hardware and OS. No matter what CPU, architecture, OS, manufacturer etc. you are talking about it is the same because the requirements of the operating system that you are running doesn't change. So you are still going to need 4 GB of RAM to run a Windows 11 VM. You are still going to need 2 GB of RAM to run a Linux VM. Period. Otherwise, your virtual computer's OS will run out of resources just as it would if you were to install the OS on physical hardware that's insufficient to handle the specs. If you don't believe me, go to ServeTheHome.com. They promote low end - meaning slow - hardware that supports a lot of RAM for virtualization servers all the time. A lot of people buy old - meaning slow - machines off Newegg and Ebay to use as virtualization servers because they have a ton of RAM. But hey, don't take my word for it. You install Windows on VirtualBox or VMWare Player and configure it to use 2 GB of RAM instead of 4 GB because "RAM on a Mac is 'effectively' twice that on a PC." See if your Windows VM even boots up.
Even better. Get a photo editor, whether Krita, GIMP, Inkscape or whatever (they are all free). Go download one of those high resolution images from NASA: https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/target/Earth
Try to edit one of those bad boys with 8 GB RAM. Don't worry! Apple's executives claim that it is just as good as doing so with 16 GB RAM, so it will work out fine!
Considering how close Apple and Adobe's relationship has been over the years (pretty much since the invention of postscript), and they were at the M1 launch (IIRC) espousing how easy it was to transition software to Apple Silicon AND their own system requirements recommend at least 16GB ram for most of the creative suite. There is no sense in releasing a Macbook with the Pro moniker with only 8GB ram.
I trust Apple less and less, let alone the Chinese government.
Hence why I don't use one of their Chinese made over priced phones, which are 5 years behind.
Regular people do not compile application and test complex enterprise software.
Why the professional people complain about RAM size? Either your company willing to pay what they need or your own business can paid off higher RAM upgrade.
It is business expenses.
If regular people think they need more RAM then they still stuck on old windows experience.
Don't get me wrong.. I don't like the way Apple charge RAM and SSD upgrade price. It should drop 25-50% from current price.
On the other hand, I am Apple stockholder and with my dividend from Apple cover all my Apple products purchase.
Far as I can see Apple price upgrade structure made as if you need specific model to upgrade then you should consider bump up different model instead.
Like Mac mini upgrade max 32GB RAM with M2 Pro, 512GB SSD, 10G NIC ended up $1799.
However, Studio with M2 Max with same other spec ended up $200 more - $1999.
If you want Mini with M2 Pro with 12 core than $300 more - $2099.
So Apple create price structure to bump up the model not individual options. They try to not make too many CTO model.
Order to doing so, upgrade option price hike.
But that was in 2013 - a DECADE ago.
Arguing that in 2023 is a little weird.