Apple Makes 16GB RAM Standard on MacBook Air 63
Apple has boosted the default RAM to 16GB across its MacBook Air lineup while maintaining existing prices. The memory upgrade affects both M2 and M3 models, with base prices staying at $999 for M2, $1,099 for 13-inch M3, and $1,299 for 15-inch M3 versions. The move comes as AI features demand increased memory capacity.
Maybe... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's about right - I've been buying $135 n100 systems for solar clusters and putting a $59 32GB SODIMM in them (and a second $35 nvme for a ZFS root mirror).
It's wild that Apple still tries to bill itself as premium.
PS what to do now with a stack of 8GB dimms and Intel wireless modules?
Re: Maybe... (Score:2)
Are they M.2 WiFi or just minipcie modules? If the former I could use one ;)
Re: (Score:3)
And Apple will still charge their $200 to add more RAM or double the storage. Just a flat $200 additional for each tier with no basis in reality.
Re: (Score:1)
Because the RAM is on the SOC. And not in external memory.
You must be living under a rock.
Re: (Score:2)
The memory controller might be in the SoC, but the RAM chips are part of the package. It's not really inside SoC. They are still standard RAM chips next to the SoC.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll note that parent said "on the SOC" though (not in), so they meant what you are saying.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's what they meant then they wouldn't think it justified the higher cost. It's the same DRAM chips.
Re: (Score:2)
But it does create a difference in pricing.
SODIMMs are mass-produced.
When you've soldered the DRAMs to the package, and then soldered the package to the mainboard, you need a SKU for every combination of RAM and CPU.
I'll not try to argue that there's a performance benefit to soldering the DRAMs and package, likely unlike the parent, but there is an effect on cost structures.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a _power_ benefit to placing the RAM as close to the memory controller as possible. The less opportunity there is for the signal to degrade, the less voltage the RAM needs. Also, latency decreases (very slightly) and you may be able to run higher memory clocks, but DDR5 kinda has solved the clock degradation problem by adding a buffer to regenerate the clock pulses. But power is the reason VRAM is physically placed close to your GPU.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, latency decreases (very slightly) and you may be able to run higher memory clocks, but DDR5 kinda has solved the clock degradation problem by adding a buffer to regenerate the clock pulses.
The electrical latency is dwarfed by the memory controller issue latency. Absolutely dwarfed.
There's probably no better example of this, than examining the latency of your_favorite_x86_here with RAM 4 inches away in some DIMMs- and then that of an M1.
The M1's latency is higher.
Is its electrical latency? No. It's not. But that doesn't really matter here when the bottleneck latency is orders of magnitude higher.
Clock rates- also another "technically correct" aspect, but another practically meaningless.
Better volume pricing with M4 mini launch (Score:2)
Maybe hey couldn't find anybody to manufacture a modern 8gb module
Note they just launched the new M4 Mac mini. They are now getting better volume pricing on 16 GB and its more practical to use them on low end systems now.
So effectively, mini and air just got upgraded from 8GB.
Not an anti-Mac guy, by any means, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's pathetic Apple needed this AI craze to justify putting more RAM in their notebooks as standard.
People have been forced to buy Apple's "high spec" version of machines for many years now, to get an adequate amount of RAM (and a reasonably sized SSD for mass storage). And with RAM being integrated in with the processor with the "M" series systems, it's obvious they're never getting upgraded in the future. Buying a Mac in 2024 with only 8GB of RAM amounts to a coach picking an athlete with a bad knee as his chosen marathon runner.
Re: (Score:2)
"Buying a Mac in 2024 with only 8GB of RAM..."
In 2024? That was true when Apple introduced the M1.
Re: (Score:2)
When I tested the M1 machines for work, it was hard to get our hands on them due to global supply chain restrictions. I was able to get a M1 Air with 16GB of RAM as I could not find a 32GB machine. I tested it and compared to the Intel based MacBook Pros with 16GB, it was actually faster and not breaking a sweat under our higher loads. We still got the 32GB machines, now 36GB machines. Overall everyone at work is very happy with the ARM machines, even though there are a tad bulkier than the Intel ones were.
re: M1 performance w/16GB vs 32GB (Score:2)
Sure ... but the "hidden" problem with the lower RAM configs on these M series machines is they do a lot more swapping to the SSD as virtual memory during normal use. Everything is fast enough so this doesn't cause users to see a real performance issue. But it puts unnecessary premature wear on the SSD, which is ALSO soldered in place on these computers, so not easy to swap out if it fails.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pathetic Apple needed this AI craze to justify putting more RAM in their notebooks as standard.
They didn't. The justification was "people are buying them"
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't. The justification was "people are buying them"
The Air upgrade is suspiciously at the same time the M4 mini is introduced. I expect they are getting better volume pricing on 16GB.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't bought any computer with less than 16GB RAM in something like fifteen years, and the last two computers we bought (one new, one used from a college surplus) are 32GB machines.
For me, RAM either has to be modular, or has to be basically maxed-out. I'm not going to bother with under-spec machines to save a few bucks because I like my computers to remain viable for the better part of a decade. For me that means downselecting to the features I require, then trying to spec the machine to the best ban
Re: (Score:2)
It's pathetic Apple needed this AI craze to justify putting more RAM in their notebooks as standard.
More likely their cost of 16GB parts just got low enough due to volume as the M4 mini launched. Its not a coincident that Air got updated at the same time.
People have been forced to buy Apple's "high spec" version of machines for many years now ...
Nope, or more accurately only "power users". The people just doing email, browsing and running productivity software for personal or school use, 8GB configurations were just fine.
Personally I do development work, I double the RAM, and the Mac remains quite good for the next 7 or so years until it no longer gets macOS upgrades. I have a 2018 MacBook Pro
More wasted RAM (Score:1)
Re:More wasted RAM (Score:4, Informative)
> I regularly catch Firefox using 10GB of RAM these days
The bloat isn't necessarily the browser's fault; Close some tabs and use bookmarks instead. It's also possible some of the sites you are visiting are exceptionally heavy with memory usage for some reason.
Every tab is functionally an entire virtual machine for security reasons. For Firefox specifically, you can put about:processes in the address bar and get a rundown of how much memory and CPU each tab is using. Find out the biggest offenders and consider not leaving them open when you're not actually using them.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:1)
It is the browsers fault.
Why close tabs? Idiot? Nothing happens if you close a tab. At least not in near future.
They are bad at memory management or garbage collection.
There is no damn reason that a tab that is not in front uses memory at all!!!!
Re: More wasted RAM (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, and playing music literally costs not RAM.
It is streamed, you know?
You get the bytes in, and move the bytes to the speaker.
If your music streaming service takes more than a megabyte of ram: it is most likely a bitcoin miner.
Re: More wasted RAM (Score:2)
Your comment is so off base I decided to log in.
Absolutely nothing streams in a webpage the way you describe it. Iâ(TM)ll provide a simplified overview.
âoeStreamingâ in a browser involves downloading a CHUNK of data (RAM needed to store this chunk),
It is then fed into the appropriate codec to read the chunk and decompress (RAM needed for codec), the codec needs to move the raw bits to audio hardware, this often involves copying the bits from RAM to the hardware device, which can have its own
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no damn reason that a tab that is not in front uses memory at all!!!!
Nonsense.
Where would you like it? Flushed to disk? Would you like to wait for it to be re-loaded every time you switch tabs?
Re: (Score:2)
A universal trade-off in software engineering is RAM for CPU.
The more buckets I put in that hash, the less likely I am to have to traverse a second layer.
"Wasting" RAM can directly lead to less CPU usage, and thus less power, while the cost for RAM usage, power-wise, is fixed independent of usage.
Re: (Score:2)
RAM is there to be wasted. Anything not in RAM when needed needs to be fetched from a cache which is orders of magnitude slower. You want less RAM used? Fine, but you're going to have to invalidate your open tabs resulting in them displaying slower or outright reloading (which is what Edge does to save RAM) when you click on them.
With 8GB reserved for AI (Score:1)
I'm sure this is because they are going to force you to keep an 8GB LLM model in-memory at all time even if you don't use the feature. You might still only have 8GB usable.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure there'll be an option in settings to turn that off. .. right?
What are AI features (Score:2)
And can I remove them?
I remember upgrading my DOS-based 486dx2-66 to 8MB of RAM. And despite having 1/2000th the RAM, it nearly had about 2000 times more games for it than a Mac.
Re: (Score:3)
There are still 2,000 times more games for Windows than Mac. Linux might even be close to overtaking Mac in game availability.
Re: What are AI features (Score:2)
If you count only the windows games which run flawlessly on Linux (sometimes better than on Windows, even) then the Mac isn't even in the running...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, except you're ignoring that Wine runs on Mac as well.
Re: (Score:2)
About 30% more of them support Linux natively (not via Proton) than Mac.
My library is of course not necessarily representative of "all libraries", but afaict, Linux support overtook Mac support in gaming a long, long time ago.
AI-driven? Please... (Score:2)
16GB of RAM has been the minimum for running a Gmail tab in Chrome for quite a while now.... they have just been juicing margins with expensive RAM step-ups that you had to pay for if you wanted to... get a usable computer...
Good (Score:2)
8 GB is criminal.
Welcome to 10 years ago chumps (Score:1, Troll)
Just an amazing week of announcements.
Must be so disappointing to the Mac users (Score:2)
Wow, all the apple boys here said we don't need 16GB because 8GB is like 32GB on PC. Wouldn't they have prefered to remove the $10 from the price that 8GB of RAM costs these days? Maybe Apple can make an 989 dollar macbook with 8GB for them?
Only your imaginary Mac users are disappointed (Score:2)
Wow, all the apple boys here said we don't need 16GB because 8GB is like 32GB on PC.
Straw man. Want to know the sort of thing actual Mac users are saying. That they have 16GB in a 2018 Intel Mac and they can run a Windows 10 virtual machine allocated 8GB, leaving 8GB for macOS, and both Windows and macOS runs just fine.
Good, but did they fix multi monitor? (Score:2)
Anyone know if they fixed that yet? At least let us keep the darn thing open. If your GPU can't drive 3 displays just disable the laptop display in software.
Of course that's not "elegant"...
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not, but the M4 chip supports an additional external display so you can have dual displays while leaving your laptop open. Not certain when the M4 will come to the Air but they will probably make the transition at some point soon. I suspect once they have burned through there stock of M3 chips.
Re: (Score:2)
Closing the clamshell does, and always has, radically reduced its cooling rate, since the screen is now an extra layer of insulation to the rising heat.
If you want that not to be the case, you need to get one of the actively cooled models.
Alternatively, you can lift the laptop off the flat surface it's on to more than overcome that loss of cooling efficiency (the bottom is all metal and radiates heat much better)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems weird, are you sure there is no other way to disable the built-in monitor except for closing the screen?
Ridiculous (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Period.
I own an MBA and an MBP- with 16GB, and 64GB, respectively.
It's not Apple that's lost in the past, it's simply the fact that some of its purchasers were OK with that small amount of RAM.
Re: (Score:2)
I bought my current machine with less than 32 GB because I bought it used, and that's a take it or leave it proposition. I promptly added 32 GB more to the 16 that I started with, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Yay! (Score:2)
Hardly enough these days. (Score:2)
That's it, really. It's nowhere near enough to do anything serious on a laptop these days with all the heavy, unoptimised, rushed, memory-hungry apps.
1K ram on my first computer.. (Score:1)
ah I remember my first computer... sinclair zx81... 1K of ram... and then I bought the 16K RAM expander module and killed that....
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, you were rollin'.
Still wouldn't buy, 32 GB is my minimum now (Score:2)
Flux will thrash the hell out of your page file if you have less than 24 GB of RAM, sometimes more -- but 32 should be enough for most cases, although I've seen RAM usage go as high as 38 GB during generation tasks.
Needless to say, I require a discrete GPU as well.
The MacBook Air is below minimum spec hardware for me. Not that Apple should cater to me, I wasn't buying at those prices anyhow.
Not Newsworthy (Score:2)