8GB RAM on M3 MacBook Pro 'Analogous to 16GB' on PCs, Claims Apple | Hacker News Reader

8GB RAM on M3 MacBook Pro 'Analogous to 16GB' on PCs, Claims Apple

macrumors.com

19 pointstosh51 comments

With 8GB, you will swap to SSD more. Intelligent algorithms and fast SSDs will indeed keep things running quickly and smoothly for the most part. However, the number of write cycles on the SSD will increase substantially compared to its larger-RAM peers. Combined with the likelihood that someone buying an 8GB machine will also have a smaller SSD due to budget, there is a much higher probability of failure in the shorter term. And once only one of the two SSD chips fails, you lose all your data, the BIOS, the ability to boot, and all other utility from this disposable, non-upgradable, non-repairable hardware.

If the BIOS were on a separate chip and they used NVMe storage, this wouldn't be a big problem. But they aren't, so it is.

You care about Right to Repair or you don't.

The first MacBooks with non-replaceable SSDs came out in 2016. We don't seem to have seen a significant problem with SSD failures.

I have a coworker that has lost two MacBooks due to drive failure in the past two years. I would never touch one of them unless I wanted to lose my data.

I mean sure, SSDs can fail, but they were clearly very unlucky.

The unlucky should be able to swap broken components too.

Ok? But I have 4 Macs (MacBook Pro 2011,MacBook Air 2012, Mac Mini 2012 and a MacBook Pro2017), all with SSDs and heavy usage-- absolutely no failures so far. Almost all of my previous Macs with HDDs have failed.

So maybe your co-worker is unlucky or you are saying this for another reason.

On their older hardware, I replaced a HD after about 6 years (that never actually had errors) with an SSD for another ~6.. With 8GB and an integrated SSD, I would be extremely nervous after year 2 or 3.

Ok? You don't have a Mx Model that relies heavily on using the SSD, so who cares about your anecdotal experience?

Welcome to HN my friend :)

The 2018 Macbooks had already 8 or 16GB, I'd argue in 5 years the average space needed for a program has significantly risen since then, causing greater wear now then in 2016/2018. https://everymac.com/systems/by_year/macs-released-in-2018.h...

Exactly, so those old MacBooks' SSDs should be failing en masse by now, if indeed there is something to worry about. There are plenty of them still in use.

When my 2015 MacBook Pro's SSD died, I could still book off an external and replace the original.

All storage dies eventually. There's a huge difference between needing to replace a broken or obsolete part and needing to replace an entire bricked laptop.

Sure, but all laptops have loads of parts that can break and that can't easily be replaced. The question is whether SSDs have become reliable enough that the advantages of making them replaceable no longer outweigh the disadvantages.

>We don't seem to have seen a significant problem with SSD failures.

We don't seem to have seen a significant problem with SSD failures for Intel Mac. But all the Apple Silicon Mac has seen significantly higher percentage of SSD failures. Louis Rossmann has ranting about this for sometime already.

>Louis Rossmann

Not exactly the most reliable source for this kind of thing. I have not seen any hard evidence of greater numbers of SSD failures. Even if it's true that MacOS swaps more aggressively with Mx chips, 8GB of RAM is going to require substantial use of swap regardless of how exactly the OS tunes things.

eh... basically all 12 inch 2016-2018 macbook airs have failed ssds.

Is there data out there showing that Macs with 8GB are hitting swap in the manner you describe? That’s a major assumption of your comment. (Even if this is happening, it should be noted that modern SSDs can be slammed pretty hard with writes and still last a very long time)

The memory on Apple’s systems is installed physically closer to the chip than any modular PC. I assume this is also a factor?

If the memory can more quickly and efficiently get data in and out of the processor, that means it can be released faster as well.

I’m not assuming that Apple’s memory architecture is faster than a typical PC equipped with DDR5 but I would be interested to see some kind of deep dive in this area because on the surface it seems like there are major hardware differences and a more customized platform on the Apple side.

Another example where this same concept comes into play is game consoles. It’s well understood that game consoles require less total RAM for playing the same game because the hardware isn’t general purpose, it’s customized and optimized for game-specific performance with a low hardware cost and customized software.

>The memory on Apple’s systems is installed physically closer to the chip than any modular PC. I assume this is also a factor?

No it is not.

ITT a lot of people are making a presumption that system memory is strictly for the use of swapping, I guess presumably for the sake of coping with Apple's decision.. but there are plenty of use-cases for large amounts of contiguous and constant-use memory space, especially when considering industrial or professional use.

8GB isn't much for most developers, even if it's special Appletanium. I need a machine that won't be severely hindered whenever I spin up a persistent server or VM that's rougher on memory footprints -- the sheer speed of memory isn't going to help so much in those kind of cases.

This was my experience. Before the M1 Pro/Max I needed to do some Apple Silicon porting for a project, so I bought the low end M1 MacBook Air with 8GB of RAM. It was amazing how well it kept up, and was generally much more snappy than my older Intel Mac with 16GB RAM. I hadn't had <16GB of RAM in years. I didn't expect it to, but it became my daily driver for several months until the Max came out.

With it's shared memory, 8GB on an MBP isn't even analogous to 8GB on a PC... irrespective of how efficiently it is utilised.

Quite right, there are lots of good things to like on Apple hardware and NeXTSTEP heritage, at least for me, however the whole "you're holding it wrong" narrative that pops up from time to time on various matters, it certainly isn't one.

I too get 8 hours of sleep done in 4 hours every night.

It’s always very simple:

if you need contiguous memory for a single process then there are no tricks you can do and you need more RAM.

If you don’t need contiguous memory there are many tricks you can do and can get away with less RAM.

99% of us are in the latter.

1% of us are in the latter 99% of the time.

Modern paging/swapping can take a good bulk of higher memory pressure... but it comes at the cost of SSD wear. Mind you, even extreme SSD wear would result in ~7 year "failure" rate... but the SSD not being replaceable is kinda a slap in the face.

For most people, 8GB is still fine. You're not getting robbed, applications have become too bloated. But the price for 8GB is a bit dumb.

It entirely depends on what you're doing. If you're web browsing using Safari, than maybe. If you're compiling/linking a large application or doing anything with larger amounts of database data or running multiple application (micro)services, then no.

Currently my 16 GB MacBook Pro can barely run Slack well alongside my Chrome windows/tabs and IDE.

The iPhone 15 Pro and iPhone 15 Pro Max both have 8GB of RAM, so are you doing anything on your computer that's more demanding than what you do on your phone?

So if Windows is bloated, we can overcharge for RAM!

So if she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood and therefor a witch! From Monte Python's "She's a Witch" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

Bad PR response.. I don't expect a macbook to be analogous to a PC, I expect macbooks to be superior to PCs..

While I believe 8gb is plenty, 16gb should be the minimum for a workstation

We should also keep shaming bad developers for wasting memory..

Example: Jetbrains just released Fleet, watch the memory usage of their background toolbox ;)

8GB is enough if you only run native apps on local data. If your workflow requires 36 copies of Chrome to be running at all times or any number of virtual machines, it might as well be 8MB.

Isn't part of the problem that the 8GB RAM is shared by both the system and the GPU? Most PCs with 16G ram have discrete VRAM onboard their GPU, separate from the system RAM.

It's true, Macs just seem to be smarter with RAM allocation/paging. I'd rather have an 8GB Mac than a 16GB PC.

Ridiculous, and shameful.

How so? What's your day-to-day experience?

My day to day experience is that I regularly need over 30GB of RAM for simulation and media workflows, and I don't use my Macs for them because PC RAM is so much cheaper.

Unfortunely for them, Apple has been positioning themselves outside of a workstation domain that now better served with Linux/Windows workflows.

The only creators left on the ecosystem are the ones targeting iDevices.

Which Windows or Linux systems have discrete-class GPUs that can address up to 128 GB of RAM on a laptop, or 192GB for a desktop?

I assume for a VRAM-heavy workflow, a Mac might be a good choice, and considering that the M3 Max benchmarks close to the laptop 4080 you’ve basically got the second best laptop SKU on the market with dramatically better power and battery life figures.

If you care even a little bit about overall portability Apple is offering a product that you can’t buy from anyone else at any price. Considering that something like 80% of PC sales are laptops that’s no joke.

I haven’t had an employer issue me a desktop PC since 2012.

Plenty as that is what desktop PCs with discrete graphics cards are for, the market once upon a time Mac Pro was for. Now it can only take audio cards.

As for laptops, here is one with 128 GB DDR5 and NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada (16GB GDDR6 VRAM).

https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/p/laptops/thinkpad/thinkpadp/th...

> GPUs that can address up to 128 GB of RAM

Except they don't, they use unified shared memory.

If you want a 128GB GPU, that is only possible with dedicated cards, those used in professional graphics workstations, none of them running macOS.

https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/data-center/h100/

>Except they don't, they use unified shared memory.

Yes, which is what allows the GPU to address all 128GB of the available RAM! This makes it possible to do lots of things that the laptop you linked to can't do.

>If you want a 128GB GPU, that is only possible with [cards used in professional graphics workstations]

That is exactly the point. But I think you know that.

Good luck making all memory being consumed by the GPU, without anything left for the OS.

Apple no longer cares about graphical workstations market, that is the point.

Lets see how much of those GPUs of yours make into VFX reference platform standard, for an example.

You're missing the original poster's point. They're not talking about graphical workstations. They said that "if you care even a little bit about overall portability Apple is offering a product that you can’t buy from anyone else at any price." A laptop with a 16GB GPU isn't a counterexample to this claim.

> Good luck making all memory being consumed by the GPU, without anything left for the OS.

Obviously, given 128GB total, you can allocate a lot more than 16GB for the GPU before you're likely to start running out of RAM for other things.

You don’t have to be in the graphical workstations market (a.k.a. “Desktop Replacement” slabs of concrete disguised as laptop computers) when your prosumer ultrabook outperforms the graphical workstation market.

In some selected benchmarks, without taking into consideration typical graphical workstation software used in the industry, those folks that pay for Mac Pros and actually use the slots.

The “components per dollar” crowd hasn’t been an Apple user since the Apple II.

There are other considerations for buying a system besides the cost of a particular component.

For example, let’s say your maximum budget is $4000, and you need 64GB of RAM to run those simulations. Which laptop will do so for the longest while on battery? Which laptop will make the least heat and noise? Which one is easiest to carry around? Which one can be used with a smaller power brick? Which one feels best to touch and use?

If my maximum budget for a car is $50,000, should I buy the Kia that has the most features per dollar, should buy a Toyota for the reliability, or should I buy a Mercedes for the quiet and luxurious cabin? All of these brands have vehicles for $50,000 or less, so the answer all depends on my priorities.

We all know that RAM is what pads Apple’s profit margins but they're selling a solution, not a bucket of components.

This is not 100% true, in 2008 you could have a MB/P and upgrade the RAM manually to have better price/performance then most other laptop manufacturers. Today this looks different looking at the "components per dollar" ratio due to the impossibility to swap yourself.

> For example, let’s say your maximum budget is $4000, and you need 64GB of RAM to run those simulations

I can get a lenovo for nearly half the price, and it feels good, and runs long enough. The other things are nice to have, but weight and heat come with the territory, if I buy a simulation monster I don't buy a small leightweight lifestyle laptop.

When I bought a Mac around 2015, they were quite competitive in certain ranges if you included a comparable display.

Until the last edition of Mac Pro, at least the components workstation crowd was still catered for.

Now just like OS X Server, not really markets that are relevant for Apple's business.

It is turning into consumer electronics.

My day-to-day experience is that a 12 gigabyte dataset will not fit into 8 gigabytes of RAM no matter whose logo is on the case. A byte is a byte.

Yeah and I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

These machines will become ewaste rapidly.

16-bit bytes?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com