Apple exec defends 8GB $1,599 MacBook Pro, claims it's like 16GB on a PC
- Reference: 1699488487
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2023/11/09/apple_exec_defends_8gb/
- Source link:
With the [1]launch of Apple's M3 MacBook Pros last month, a base 14-inch $1,599 model with an M3 chip still only gets you 8GB of unified DRAM that's shared between the CPU, GPU, and neural network accelerator.
We said at the time "it's almost 2024, and Apple is still shipping PCs with 8GB of RAM," which got us [2]some stick from readers who felt that capacity was more than enough. That's all well and good, but we and others kinda expected more for the price. Paying more gets you more capacity, of course.
[3]
In a show of Apple's typical modesty this week, the tech giant's veep of worldwide product marketing Bob Borchers has argued, in an [4]interview with machine-learning engineer Lin YilYi, that the Arm-compatible, Apple-designed M-series silicon and software stack is so memory efficient that 8GB on a Mac may equal 16GB on a PC – so we therefore ought to be happy with it. The discussion comes up around 6.5-minute mark into the conversation.
[5]
[6]
"Comparing our memory to other system's memory actually isn't equivalent because of the fact that we have such an efficient use of memory, and we use memory compression, and we have a unified memory architecture," Borchers boasted.
The reference to unified memory refers to the fact that Apple Silicon Macs' memory is placed next to and is directly connected to the system-on-chip die within the processor package rather than being soldered to the motherboard or connected using SODIMM modules. When you get an 8GB M3 or 36GB M3 Max, say, that DRAM is built into the processor chip.
We just happen to be able to use it much more efficiently
According to Borchers, this all means Apple's computers can get away with less memory. "Actually 8GB on an M3 MacBook Pro is probably analogous to 16GB on other systems. We just happen to be able to use it much more efficiently," he opined.
The comments remind us of the infamous "640K ought to be enough for anybody" quote regularly attributed to Bill Gates in the 1980s, though he's denied ever uttering the words.
[7]
While co-packing memory alongside the processor does have advantages when it comes to things like access latency and bandwidth — something that higher end M-series silicon has gobs of — this doesn't change the fact that you can fit less into 8GB of memory than 16GB.
With that said, macOS does make use of several tricks to optimize memory utilization, including caching as much data as it can in free RAM to avoid running to and from slower storage for stuff (there's no point in having unused physical RAM in a machine) and compressing information in memory, all of which other operating systems, including Windows and Linux, do too in their own ways.
All of this is broken out in Apple’s Activity Monitor, it explains [8]here . Because of the way this information is presented to users, memory utilization has become a perennial question among confused buyers trying to figure out just how much RAM they actually need.
[9]
Regardless of how the operating system handles memory, fire up enough Chrome tabs, and the result is going to be the same: eventually the system is going to start slowing down as it eats into swap space in storage.
Given a fast enough SSD, the degradation in performance associated with running low on RAM can be hidden to a degree, though it does come at the expense of additional wear on the NAND flash modules. Unfortunately, in recent generations, Apple has effectively nerfed the performance of the SSDs found in many of its entry-level machines. This was the case on the M2 MacBook Air, but we'll have to wait and see whether it's also true of Apple's 8GB M3 MacBook Pro.
[10]Apple's year ends with surging services, a billion subscribers, and a view of generation next
[11]Batterygate bound for Blighty as UK court approves billion-dollar Apple compensation case
[12]Apple swipes left on the last Touch Bar Mac, replaces it with a pricier 14″ model
[13]Apple lifts the sheet on a trio of 'scary fast' M3 SoCs built on a 3nm process
So how much memory do you actually need? Borchers suggests customers test the machines out for themselves, presumably at the Apple Store, and see how they run. "What I would say is, I would have people… come in and try what they want to do on their systems, and they will, I think, see incredible performance."
We'd hate to say that Apple has designed its computers so that they perform stunningly in the shop for a few minutes, and work differently after a few months at home or in the office. His comment is also somewhat ironic in that much of the focus of YilYi's interview with Borchers centered around the use of Apple Silicon in machine-learning development, which you don't do in a store.
Many of these models require a considerable amount of memory to run. Llama2 7B, a commonly cited large language model for AI PCs, needs around 7GB of memory to run at 8-bit precision. And so, while an 8GB M-series MacBook has the horsepower to run it, it wouldn't have the memory, comfortably if at all.
We'll note that Apple is hardly the only PC vendor selling systems with 8GB of memory as standard. The difference is most PC slingers aren't charging anywhere near what Apple is to upgrade machines beyond the base spec. Upgrading the base model M3 MacBook Pro to 16GB will cost you another $200, while 24GB will run you an extra $400. (There's a reason why we used to refer to Apple as the Cupertino idiot-tax operation.)
And since the memory is integrated into the SoC package, that means there's no upgrading it down the line, and no amount of memory compression or caching is going to change that. ®
Get our [14]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/31/apple_m3_cpus_macbook_pro_imac/
[2] https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2023/10/31/apple_m3_cpus_macbook_pro_imac/#c_4751805
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZUxndTnd1lrq0iptUOGsBwAAAAA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV16M411Q7BG/
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZUxndTnd1lrq0iptUOGsBwAAAAA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZUxndTnd1lrq0iptUOGsBwAAAAA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZUxndTnd1lrq0iptUOGsBwAAAAA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://support.apple.com/guide/activity-monitor/view-memory-usage-actmntr1004/mac
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZUxndTnd1lrq0iptUOGsBwAAAAA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/03/apple_q4_2023/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/02/apple_batterygate_uk/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/01/apple_kills_off_touchpad/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/31/apple_m3_cpus_macbook_pro_imac/
[14] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
With 8GB of RAM...
...It would be a real shame if customers had to pay more to run workloads in Cloud, wouldn't it?
Insult to injury
8gb? Okay, maybe MacOS is more frugal than most. What I find inexcusable is the fruit vendor charging $200 to upgrade to 16gb. And no, you can't add memory at a later date, just from the factory.
Fool, money, etc.
*Placed*
The reference to unified memory refers to the fact that Apple Silicon Macs' memory is placed next to the system-on-chip die within the processor package rather than being soldered to the motherboard or connected using SODIMM modules.
Hmm how do you *place* that memory? Hmm blue-tac? tape? superglue?
No! It's soldered.
Re: *Placed*
The key part isn't the connection method but the location: it's on the same chip package as the CPU. Soldered or socketed is more to cover both main ways RAM is connected to a motherboard.
Re: *Placed*
Technically , as the RAM is integrated into the SoC, and the SoC is soldered to the logic board... the RAM is soldered to the logic board. So, the OP was right, in the sense of falling down in the outhouse and coming out smelling like roses.
I was gonna say...
Thankfully, El Reg got to it for me. The physical placement of the RAM doesn't mean shit as far as capacity goes. Sure, with the tight vertical integration Apple has, with extremely limited hardware support, maybe they can be a bit more efficient than Microsoft or Linux or whatever where a lot of stuff will get loaded "just in case." But, 8GB is still 8GB at the end of the day. Someone using Photoshop or Final Cut Pro is probably still hurting when they need to edit larger files if they believed this load of bullplop.
Sort of sad reality is, there's a lot of Apple fanboi types out there who will just blindly believe whatever some marketing material from Cupertino says. They could say the sky is purple, and they'd probably twist themselves into all manner of knots trying to say how it's real. It'd be enough that even the fake moon landing and lizard people conspiracy theorists would think they're crazy. That tribal mentality doesn't just stop at left vs right politics, it extends to things like operating systems and beyond.
Looking at Activity Monitor on my old (Intel) 16GB Macbook Pro right now:
- Wired Memory (system) is 2.63GB
- WindowServer is using 1015MB
- kernel_task is using 693MB
That means over 4GB is being used just in the background, so an 8GB machine would have less than 4GB available for applications. I wouldn't expect the ARM processors to be significantly different in their usage; both are 64-bit processors.
IMO, the purpose of the 8GB machines is to be able to make the headline "From" price lower. They're still usable for basic browsing / word-processing etc.
The quantity is fine, but the price is not
I don't really disagree with Apple that 8 GB is enough for some use cases. There are certainly many for which more is helpful, but there are many people who don't do that much with their computer who won't benefit from it. My problem with this spec is that they're pretending it's still high-end and charging accordingly. Sorry, Apple, but 8 GB of RAM is now the basic amount that computers come with once you get out of landfill range. You get a few points for the speed, but the quantity is not only not special, but it's not even average. I'm convinced that the only reason they have that option is to be able to say their MacBook Pro starts at a lower price of $1599 (US, and I'm using USD here because it's the one Apple starts with and doesn't involve calculating any tax rates to compare it), which is a lot of dollars. You can get a lot more performance for the same price elsewhere.
While Apple's always been somewhat expensive compared to the market, they usually weren't this crazy about it. In fact, they still aren't in many cases. For instance, the Mac Mini still starts at $600 for the same 8/256 GB pairing, although they haven't put the M3 in it yet. They are telling us that the laptop part is a lot more expensive than we know it to be and then overcharging for each small increase in specifications above that mediocre starting point. I won't disagree that 8 GB is enough for some people, but don't pretend it's amazing when it's not.
Why is an Apple exec spending any of their precious time defending their products?
the twits were going to buy it anyway.