Ooohhh, wowie!
Meanwhile.im looking into upgrading my 64 gigs to 128, in small part because I might need to, in large Bart because I CAN.
Stop buying apple crap
It’s about time.
It’s really sad that this needs to be an actual headline.
Lol, right? I had a dell laptop with 16GB in 2010. How are apple customers ok with this?
Even phones have been available with more than 8 gigs of ram for ~5 years
Considering that RAM is shared with the GPU, it’s still not enough.
“yeah but that’s like having 32GB on a lame PC”
It’s OK - for an extra $400 they’ll sell you one with an extra $50 worth of RAM.
$800 for $30 of ram
It doesn’t even cost that for them.
I think they meant what the end user would NORMALLY pay, which is the better comparison.
But Apple isn’t buying consumer ram, they’re spending $8 to put on a different chip instead. If other laptop manufacturers are charging $50, it’s because they think they can get away with it, like apple.
Think that’s not really what’s being compared, but ok
The point is that the scam is actually even worse.
It’s really not. Other companies with socketed RAM also upsell, they are just limited in how much they can ask because the customer has the option to DIY adding more RAM. So the cost these companies charge is roughly the price to the customer of upgrading their own RAM, plus a bit extra for the convenience of not having to do that.
For example, Framework upcharges by something like 20-50% for RAM and SSDs when comparing to equivalent parts. It’s not just Apple, all OEMs do it, but Apple can charge much more because the user can’t easily replace either on their own.
I remember an Apple fanboy arguing that this made things better!
It does make some things better, but there are a number of downsides too. The biggest downside is that it’s not practical to make the memory socketed because of the speed that’s required.
Linux requirements: CPU (optional)
Paper Linux, computing done olde world style 📜 🤖
i wonder if it’s actually possible to install linux on a machine without a CPU
These days, the CPU probably runs Linux on itself.
Storage drive control boards are basically small computers in their own right, now.
Linux is a bit heavy for embedded stuff.
Intel’s ME for an example, uses Minix.
Golly, thanks Apple. It’s not like I can go buy a 256GB DIMM right now. 16GB what a joke.
for the same price other laptops sell for 64GB
what a bargain
Wait, that’s it? Seriously?
Minimum, the base model chip can also come with 32gb.
Why are apple products always so anemic on memory?
Because there are two types of mac users:
- People that ate buying them with their own money because they’re trendy and just using them as glorified Internet browsers. 16gb is plenty.
- People using them professionally so their company is paying and Apple can over charge for the necessary memory upgrade
I have an m2 8 gb. And it’s plenty. It’s just a browsing/discord/stream box basically.
This pretty much. I don’t care that much that a maxed out MBP is $6000 or whatever, my employer pays for that.
Greed, it lowers the advertised price, but once you spec it decently you’ve added a grand in extras
Price discrimination based on memory loadout is real, but it’s not specific to Apple, either.
Because a huge part of their business model over the past twenty years has been the upsell.
I bought my first MacBook in 2007. It had 2gb of RAM as standard. I asked about upgrading it, the guy told me to pick some up online as it would be waaaay cheaper, and he was right. Did the same for the MacBook Pro that replaced it a few years later, but in the meantime they moved to the soldered model so had to swallow the cost of the 16gb ‘upgrade’ in my M2 Air.
To be fair, the cost over time of my Macs has been incredible. My 2011 MBP is still trucking along, these days running Linux Mint. With the cost to upgrade the RAM and replace the HDD with an SSD, all in it cost me around £1200. Less than £100 a year for a laptop that still works perfectly fine.
Welcome to 2010
I upgraded from 8GB to 16GB like 2 months ago.
Welcome to 2010 to you as well then!
Check out 9gag.com for funny pictures!
Or iFunny if you’re feelin’ saucy!
I don’t really care unless it has the same price point as the 8gb one.
But we all know it won’t be.
£15 more RAM. £150 more price.
$1000-$1100 is still a lot to ask of me specifically, but that is closer to market IMHO
Whoa, that’s like 32GB of Windows RAM. Seems excessive to me tbh
AI Models needs that RAM to work
My Linux machine has 64 GiB of RAM, which is like 128 GiB of Mac RAM. It’s still not enough
Serious question what are you using all that RAM for? I am having a hard time justifying upgrading one of my laptops to 32 GiB, nevermind 64 GiB.
Photo Editing, Video Transcoding.
Any memory that’s going unused by apps is going to be used by the OS for caching disk contents. That’s not as significant with SSD as with rotational drives, but it’s still providing a benefit, albeit one with diminishing returns as the size of the cache increases.
That being said, if this is a laptop and if you shut down or hibernate your laptop on a regular basis, then you’re going to be flushing the memory cache all the time, and it may buy you less.
IIRC, Apple’s default mode of operation on their laptops these days is to just have them sleep, not hibernate, so a Mac user would probably benefit from that cache.
For me in particular I’m a software developer who works on developer tools, so I have a lot of tests running in VMs so I can test on different operating systems. I just finished running a test suite that used up over 50 gigs of RAM for a dozen VMs.
Same, 48c/96t with 192gb ram.
make -j is fun, htop triggers epilepsy.
Few vms, but tons of Lxc containers, it’s like having 1 machine that runs 20 systems in parallel and really fast.
Have containers for dev, for browsing, for wine, the dream finally made manifest.
If games, modding uses a lot. It can go to the point of needing more than 32gb, but rarely so.
Usually, you’d want 64gb or more for things like video editing, 3d modeling, running simulations, LLMs, or virtual machines.
I use Virtual Machines and run local LLMs. LLMs need VRAM rather than CPU RAM. You shouldn’t be doing it on a laptop without a serious NPU or GPU, if at all. I don’t know if I will be using VMs heavily on this machine or not, but that would be a good reason to have more RAM. Even so 32 GiB should be enough for a few VMs running concurrently.
and run local LLMs.
Honestly, I think that for many people, if they’re using a laptop or phone, doing LLM stuff remotely makes way more sense. It’s just too power-intensive to do a lot of that on battery. That doesn’t mean not-controlling the hardware – I keep a machine with a beefy GPU connected to the network, can use it remotely. But something like Stable Diffusion normally requires only pretty limited bandwidth to use remotely.
If people really need to do a bunch of local LLM work, like they have a hefty source of power but lack connectivity, or maybe they’re running some kind of software that needs to move a lot of data back and forth to the LLM hardware, I think I might consider lugging around a small headless LLM box with a beefy GPU and a laptop, plug the LLM box into the laptop via Ethernet or whatnot, and do the LLM stuff on the headless box. Laptops are just not a fantastic form factor for heavy crunching; they’ve got limited ability to dissipate heat and tight space constraints to work with.
Does it?
Previous benchmarks have shown the 8 GB models seriously fell behind in performance.
Yeah I think the joke just flew over your head.
Apple keeps saying that their RAM is somehow magic and therefore better than Windows RAM, which is a comment that obviously makes no sense.
Yeah I think the joke just flew over your head.
I realize this should be a joke, but I am still unsure if it is.
It is 100% a joke. Literally other than Windows being slightly more RAM hungry, there’s not a huge difference between it and Mac’s RAM
Memory is memory. If an application requires a lot of memory then it really doesn’t matter what speed that memory is it’s more important that there’s enough of it.
There are plenty of applications that could theoretically run on the M2 MacBook in terms of processing capacity but can’t run because there isn’t enough RAM available. Oh they run in switching mode, which is super bad, because a, it’s incredibly slow, and b, it’s bad for the hard drive.
I think they are able to share it with the GPU or something? It is maybe slightly better but it sure as fuck is not 2x better.
8 GB, even if it is “magic RAM,” is a joke amount and has been for a long time.
That’s just an APU, see consoles and laptops. The unified memory is basically just the above, but Apple also claims that due to Apple Silicon having the storage controller on board, the swap is magically faster 🤷
Also Mac OS/Linux use less RAM than Windows which certainly helps.
8GB is “fine™” on a MacBook Air, but it’s criminal for a Pro machine, and it certainly should not cost £200 for an extra 8GB. That’s genuinely insane pricing
That’s the real issue, isn’t it? The upgrade prices are disconnected from reality by a lot. If they were within the realm of sanity nobody would care much that the base is 8 GB.
I was saying this and my girlfriend when they first came out the whole thing is completely out of spec for everyone regardless of your use case.
She really only wants it for playing The Sims but you’ll run into RAM limitations there, and as you say it’s not worth paying so much more just to get a device that’s actually functional.
If you want to use it for basic word processing then you really don’t need that level of latency and you really don’t need a CPU of that level of performance. You’re just paying for stuff you’re never going to use.
If you want it for gaming there isn’t enough memory to make it worthwhile.
If you want it for intensive graphics editing work then there really isn’t enough memory for that to work.
If you want it for advanced computation then you’re probably not going for a laptop anyway. The M2 chip is obsessed with retaining battery life, which is fine in a laptop but if you want high performance applications you just want it to use more power.
It for some bizarre reason you wanted to do AI research on a laptop it’s not too bad but you’d still need the pro version and there are better things on the market but it wouldn’t be the worst I guess.
So outside of one very niche scenario it’s literally a pointless device for 99% of the user base.
In the end we got a framework laptop, which is more than capable of doing what we wanted and didn’t cost anywhere near as much. Plus it basically looks like a MacBook too. So even going to build quality wasn’t a consideration. I got one too for no particular reason, and it still ended up cheaper.
Is it like SI RAM vs US Customary RAM?
Yes. Freedom RAM equals approx. 1.6 metric RAMs. Unless your computer is on water, in which case it’s 1.857
Is that calibrated against the Universal Prototype Kilobyte in Paris?
iirc that one is outdated as it’s 1024 bytes. They haven’t been able to shave off the extra 24 bytes
1 GB is equivalent to 127,549,349,788 boron atoms.
The annoying thing is I have had people claim that 8GB and 16GB is fine on Apple and works better than on PC laptops. To the point one redditor point blank refused to believe I owned an Apple laptop. I literally had to take a photograph of said laptop and show it to them before they would believe me about the RAM capacity.
I own a 8GB MacBook Pro for work, it’s definitely better than a PC with 8GB of RAM, but not better or even close to a PC with 16GB. Just the amount of stutters/freezes while the swap file goes is insane
Maybe this is true if you use Windows. If you use Linux on your PC versus macOS on a MacBook you will probably find the PC performs comparably if not better.
Until you open a web browser or an Electron app. Them folks don’t really seem to give a shit about RAM usage.
A Windows application and a Mac application will use pretty much the same amount of memory regardless of operating system.
The real issue is how much memory the OS uses up. Windows is a massive waste of RAM but not enough to make any difference, certainly not with 8 GB versus 16 GB. You’re still better off on PC then.
We are talking about PC vs Mac. Both have the same problem when it comes to chromium based things.
Oh totally, Linux is in the same ballpark as, if not better than, Macs when it comes to RAM usage. Windows is just a hog
That’s probably all the telemetrics in Windows taking their toll.
You should have said “sure buddy” and ignored them.
Obviously it depends on the situation but sometimes it is worth talking to idiots not because you have any chance of changing their mind but just demonstrate to everyone else in the thread that they are in fact an idiot. Just in case somebody thinks they have a point.
Sure buddy.
The problem is they will then keep spreading misinformation.
And that’s your problem? Do you hold $AAPL
…or $SPY, or $QQQ, or…
What even are those?
Apple helped spread that misinformation. So why would I hold some of their stock if I am trying to counter it?
No, I want companies to stop spreading this bullshit and for people to stop falling for it. I don’t hold any stocks at all. In fact that kind of bullshit I am fairly against.
Ironically, it’s the other way around, since Apple has to share their RAM between GPU and CPU, where other computers typically have them separately.
So in normal usage with 8 GB, you’re automatically down to 7, since at least 1GB would be taken by the graphics card. More if you’re doing anything reasonably graphics-heavy with it.
Let me know how many multiple thousands of dollars it’s going to cost for a MAX variant of the chip that can run three external monitors like it’s 2008.
deleted by creator
Nope. All base Mx Series Macs can only support a single external monitor in addition to their internal one.
Pro Series are professional enough that Apple deems your work worthy of using two (2) external monitors.
Max Series are the only ones that have proved their Maximum enough to Apple to let them use 3 monitors.
It’s honestly absurd. And none of them support Display Port’s alt mode so they can’t daisy chain between monitors and they max out at 3, whereas an equivalent Windows or Linux machine could do 6 over the same Thunderbolt 3 connection.
Windows and Linux machines also support sub pixel text rendering, so text looks far better on 1080p and 1440p monitors.
I have to use MacOS for work and while I’ve come to accept many parts and even like some, their external monitor support is just mind numbingly bad.
I guess you could get an eGPU. Probably not cheaper than just giving Apple their pound of flesh, though.
If apple supported egpus, sure, you could. But they don’t so…
I’m sure I remember reading about Macs using eGPUs.
https://support.apple.com/en-gb/102363
They supported it on Intel processors.
looks more
Oh, their ARM-based machines can’t.
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254655917
No. The Apple Silicon Macs do not currently support external GPUs and Apple has not made any mention of planning to support them in the future.
What you’re describing as “DisplayPort alt mode” is DisplayPort Multi-Stream Transport (MST). Alt mode is the ability to pass native DisplayPort stream(s) via USB-C, which all M chip Macs are capable of. MST is indeed unsupported by M chip hardware, and it’s not supported in macOS either way - even the Intel Macs don’t support it even though the hardware is capable of it.
MST is nice for a dual WQHD setup or something (or dual UHD@60 with DisplayPort 1.4), but attempt to drive multiple (very) high resolution and refresh rate displays and you’ll be starved for bandwidth very quickly. Daisy-chaining 6 displays might technically be possible with MST, but each of them would need to be set to a fairly low resolution for today’s standards. Macs that support more than one external display can support two independent/full DisplayPort 1.4 signals per Thunderbolt port (as per the Thunderbolt 4 spec), so with a proper Thunderbolt hub you can connect two high resolution displays via one port no problem.
I agree that even base M chips should support at least 3 simultaneous displays (one internal and two external, or 3 external in clamshell mode), and they should add MST support for the convenience to be able to connect to USB-C hubs using MST with two (lower-resolution) monitors, and support proper sub-pixel font anti-aliasing on these low-DPI displays (which macOS was perfectly capable of in the past, but they removed it). Just for the convenience of being able to use any random hub you stumble across and it “just works”, not because it’s necessarily ideal.
But your comparison is blown way out of proportion. “Max” Macs support the internal display at full resolution and refresh rate (120 Hz), 3 external 6K 60Hz displays and an additional display via HDMI (4K 144 Hz on recent models). Whatever bandwidth is left per display when daisy-chaining 6 displays to a single Thunderbolt port on a Windows machine, it won’t be anywhere near enough to drive all of them at these resolutions.
Agreed, I typed quickly before bed and meant MST not alt mode.
But otherwise you’re just arguing that it’s not a big deal because ‘you don’t need any of these fancy features if you throw out your monitor every three years and buy new thousand dollar ones’.
For everyone who doesn’t want to contribute to massive piles of e-waste, we still have 1080p and 1440p, 60Hz monitors kicking around, and there is no excuse for a Mac to only be able to drive one of them with crappy looking text. It could easily drive 6 within the bandwidth of a 4k, 120Hz signal. Hell it could drive 8 or more if you drop the refresh down to 30.
I’m not generally arguing it’s not a big deal. I’m actually saying the regular M chips should be upgraded to M “Pro” levels of display support. But beyond two external displays, yes, I’m arguing it’s not a big deal, simply because >99% of users don’t want to use more than two external displays (no matter the resolution). Even if I had 6 old displays lying around I would hardly use more than two of them for a single computer. And as long as I’m not replacing all 6 displays with 6 new displays it doesn’t make a difference in terms of e-waste. On the contrary I’d use way more energy driving 6 displays simultaneously.
I’m 100% with you that MST should be supported, but not because driving six displays (per stream) is something I expect many people to do, but because existing docking solutions often use MST to provide multiple (2) DisplayPort outputs. My workplace has seats with a USB-C docking station connected to two WQHD displays via MST, and they’d all need replacing should we ever switch to MacBooks.
And sure, they should bring back proper font rendering on lower resolution displays. I personally haven’t found it to be too bad, but better would be … better, obviously. And as it already was a feature many moons ago, it’s kind of a no-brainer.
sub pixel text rendering, so text looks far better on 1080p and 1440p monitors.
Why would you need that? Buy an Ultra Pro Retina Max Display and please get the stand if you don’t want Apple to go out of business.
deleted by creator
You need to reread my comment where I point out that it’s only the Max chips that can drive more than two external monitors.
And bro, a cursory Google search would also bring up this page from Apple which confirms everything I wrote. A base M3 mac can only drive two monitors if the internal display is closed, i.e. it can only drive one external monitor and one internal.
deleted by creator
Read up to the part of the comment where I set the context as “in addition to their internal one”.
deleted by creator
My last job issued me an M2 air that could only power 1 external monitor. Was annoying as hell.
“640k ought to be enough for anyone.”
It’s amazing that with transparent huge pages in Linux I can have memory pages bigger than that entire 640k.
My CPU’s L1 cache is larger than that 640K system’s main memory.
i could run wing commander 2, ultima underworld, and lands of lore. who needs any more?
EMACS: Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping
And it probably won’t be able to be upgraded by the user, which should be the bare minimum.
MacBooks have an SoC, so it doesn’t make sense for the ram to be upgradable.
An SOC is a bad idea for laptops in my opinion, it just makes it harder to repair and less modular. I understand that it helps to compact the device, but it should only be used in phones if at all.
I disagree. SoCs allow for lower power consumption and a larger battery. They definitely have disadvantages but I don’t see ARM computers ever using anything but SoCs.
🆗
And it
probablyabsolutely guaran-fucking-teed won’t be able to be upgraded by the user, which should be the bare minimum.You loose performance by making RAM upgradeable, hope the new RAM design, where you can install ram as if it was soldered in, is coming soon:
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/motherboards/what-is-camm2
The amount of performance you lose is negligible compared to the amount of performance you lose in 5 years when the laptop’s processor is out of date and there’s barely enough ram to run a semi-heavy task.
You lose performance if you can’t upgrade.
