• phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    21 days ago

    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

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      24 days ago

      It’s OK - for an extra $400 they’ll sell you one with an extra $50 worth of RAM.

        • ripcord@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          23 days ago

          I think they meant what the end user would NORMALLY pay, which is the better comparison.

          • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            23 days ago

            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.

  • padge@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    23 days ago

    My sister just bought a MacBook Air for college, and I had to beg her to spend the extra money on 16gb of memory. It feels like a scam that it appears cheap with the starting at price, but nobody should actually go with those “starting at” specs.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      23 days ago

      Yeah it’s about future proofing. 8 GB might be okay for basic browsing and text editing now, but in the future that might not be the case. Also in my experience people who only want to do basic browsing and word editing, end up inevitably wanting to do more complex things and not understanding that their device is not capable of it.

      • padge@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        22 days ago

        Exactly. I told her that 8gb might be fine for a year or two, but if she wants this thousand plus dollar laptop to last four years she needs to invest the extra money now. Especially once she told me she might want to play Minecraft or Shadow of the Tomb Raider on it

  • flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    23 days ago

    Naturally the price for the cheapest model will also be going to up several orders of magnitude more than the cost of materials, labor, and healthy profit margin to account for that as well I’m sure.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        23 days ago

        It’s not an upgrade though it’s just a different model. They’re not modules you can install and I don’t even think Apple can install them you just get a different motherboard.

        Which is objectionable for so many reasons, not least of all E-Waste.

        • stellargmite@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          23 days ago

          Yeh I get that. Its treated as if its an upgrade - a sales upsell to a different unit I guess, rather than an upgrade to the literal unit the customer is receiving. Yep objectionable all round.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            22 days ago

            My point is you cannot effectively upgrade after the fact. You have to buy a whole new device.

            • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              22 days ago

              There’s reasons behind this. LPDDR IIRC works most efficiently when it’s closer to the CPU than what dimms would allow for.

              Boosts speed and lowers the power requirements.

              It also incentivizes people to buy larger SKUs than they originally wanted, which, bluntly, is probably the main driver for going that direction… I’m just saying that there’s technical reasons too

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                22 days ago

                The technical benefits are honestly quite overblown. The M-series didn’t get the massive speed lift because it moved to soldered RAM near the CPU, it got the massive speed lift because it doesn’t have to copy stuff between the CPU and GPU, the proximity to the CPU is a pretty modest improvement. So they could’ve gotten 95% of the benefit while still offering socketed RAM, but they decided not to, probably to drive prices up.

                • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  21 days ago

                  There’s actually an argument that makes the point of driving prices down with soldered RAM.

                  The individual memory chips and constituent components are cheaper than they would be for the same in a DIMM. We’re talking about a very small difference, and bluntly, OEMs are going to mark it up significantly enough that the end consumer won’t see a reduction for this (but OEMs will see additional profits).

                  So by making it into unupgradable ewaste, they make an extra buck or two per unit, with the added benefit of our being unupgradable ewaste, so you throw it out and buy a whole new system sooner.

                  This harkens back to my rant on thin and light phones, where the main point is that they’re racing to the bottom. Same thing here. For thin and light mobile systems, soldered RAM still saves precious space and weight, allowing for it to be thinner and lighter (again, by a very small margin)… That’s the only market segment I kind of understand the practice. For everything else, DIMMs (or the upcoming LPCAMM2)… IMO, I’d rather sacrifice any speed benefit to have the ability to upgrade the RAM.

                  The one that ticks me off is the underpowered thin/lights that are basically unusable ewaste because they have the equivalent of a Celeron, and barely enough RAM to run the OS they’re designed for. Everything is soldered, and they’re cheap, so people on a tight budget are screwed into buying them. This is actually a big reason why I’m hoping that the windows-on-ARM thing takes off a bit, because those systems would be far more useful than the budget x86 chips we’ve seen, and far less expensive than anything from Intel or AMD that’s designed for mobile use. People on a tight budget can get a cheap system that’s actually not ewaste.

    • boonhet@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      23 days ago

      Isn’t the RAM inside the actual SoC with the Apple Silicon line? I haven’t really opened any of 'em up.

      As for older Macs - sure, I know someone who replaced 8 gigs with 16 on either an Air or Pro model that had 16 available as an option but was shipped with 8. It’s just something you do when you have way too many Mac boards lying around at work and your bosses say you can’t get a new work laptop.

  • OmegaLemmy@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    23 days ago

    I always thought 8gb was a fine amount for daily use if you never did anything too heavy, are apps really that ram intense now?

    • T156@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      23 days ago

      Yes. Just as 4GB was barely enough a decade ago.

      I usually find myself either capping out the 8GB of RAM on my laptop, or getting close to it if I have Firefox, Discord and a word processor open. Especially if I have Youtube or Spotify going.

    • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      22 days ago

      Yep. I work in IT support, almost entirely Windows but similar concepts apply.

      I see people pushing 6G+ with the OS and remote desktop applications open sometimes. My current shop does almost everything by VDI/remote desktop… So that’s literally the only thing they need to load, it’s just not good.

      On the remote desktop side, we recently shifted from a balanced remote desktop server, over to a “memory optimised” VM, basically has more RAM but the same or similar CPU, because we kept running out of RAM for users, even though there was plenty of CPU available… It caused problems.

      Memory is continually getting more important.

      When I do the math on the bandwidth requirements to run everything, the next limit I think we’re likely to hit is RAM access speed and bandwidth. We’re just dealing with so much RAM at this point that the available bandwidth from the CPU to the RAM is less than the total memory allocation for the virtual system. Eg: 256G for the VM, and the CPU runs at, say, 288GB/s…

      Luckily DDR 4/5 brings improvements here, though a lot of that stuff has yet to filter into datacenters