128GB RAM on M3 Max worth it?

[pi6xjdskfa]

Is there any benefit to getting 128gb over 64gb RAM?

I am planning on upgrading from M1 Max 10-core, 64gb RAM, 2tb ssd to M3 Max 16core/40core GPu option with either 64/128gb ram. I mainly use Capture 1 on 50 megapixel RAW images and edit 8k video (4:2:2) in Final Cut. I am using 2 apple studio displays and want to get the M3 Max so I can have the option of buying the PRO XDR in the future for a 3-display set up.

Most of the time memory pressure is green even with C1, Photo Mechanic, Chrome and Final Cut X running. I am currently using 28gb with all of the above loaded as my normal workflow.

If I get the PRO XDR Will 128gb help speed things up as there is more memory for displays under the unified memory architecture?

I currently have to wait for 8k video to render before I can really do quick editing in FCP X. Will 128gb ram speed things up so I don't have to create proxy files or render files to Pro Res?

Someone also mentioned that 8k frame grabs from video in FCP X are not high resolution with the older laptops because I didn't have enough RAM. Is this true?

 

[hovscorpion12]

Final Cut 10.7 did get released which updated export times.

• Export HEVC and H.264 files faster by simultaneously processing video segments across available media engines (requires macOS Sonoma or later and a Mac with Apple M1 Max, M1 Ultra, M2 Max, M2 Ultra, or M3 Max).

What I would suggest. Test out 8K renders with the 10.7 update and see the results. if you're getting better results in 10.7, I'd say stick with 64GB on M3 Max. 128GB will definitely give you more headroom, but all comes down to the app itself.

 

[pi6xjdskfa]

I like to upgrade every 2-3 years and get trade in value from my older mac with Apple. I need a lot of maximum horsepower for multiple tasks at once as I have to ingest 20-30gb of data, deliver stills and downscaled 8k>1080p video on tight deadlines. I like the competitive advantage M1 game me and from what I've seen the speed improvement is noticeable from m1>m3 but not spectacular. This is why I don't want to max out the specs as I did on M1.

Apple estimates $1600 trade in value. I also get 3% cash back on Apple card so total for upgrade from m1 max to m3 max with 64gb ram would be about $2570 before tax and $3347 for 128gb ram.

 

[jav6454]

My personal rule of thumb, is that when my RAM usage is hovering at 50%, my next device has to have double that capacity in order to extend usage.

In this case, assuming 28GB is under normal conditions, it is almost 50% of 64GB. Given the larger 64GB, I would be hard-pressed to upgrade to 128GB unless I can afford it.

So the question becomes, can you afford it and how often do you think your workload will be close to 64GB.

 

[mdhaus72]

My personal rule of thumb, is that when my RAM usage is hovering at 50%, my next device has to have double that capacity in order to extend usage.

In this case, assuming 28GB is under normal conditions, it is almost 50% of 64GB. Given the larger 64GB, I would be hard-pressed to upgrade to 128GB unless I can afford it.

So the question becomes, can you afford it and how often do you think your workload will be close to 64GB.

I agree with you that he likely doesn't need the 128GB of RAM and that 64GB is enough. One word of caution, though, is that the way MacOS uses the RAM pool makes it harder to calculate how much RAM you truly need. The OS will always tap into the full RAM pool as much as possible. So, for example, that 28GB under normal conditions may be a bit misleading and not a true reflection of what he could get away with.

I personally think he's fine with 64GB.

 

[jav6454]

I agree with you that he likely doesn't need the 128GB of RAM and that 64GB is enough. One word of caution, though, is that the way MacOS uses the RAM pool makes it harder to calculate how much RAM you truly need. The OS will always tap into the full RAM pool as much as possible. So, for example, that 28GB under normal conditions may be a bit misleading and not a true reflection of what he could get away with.

I personally think he's fine with 64GB.

This is a true assessment, the fact the OSX tries to use unused RAM as a cache stash is what can create issues as the true usage is normally hidden this way.

I mean, you could try to see how the Active portion of RAM is doing, but there is always a small variance there.

 

[macduke]

Well, I can tell you this much: So far my M3 Max with 64GB is running about 8GB lower than my Intel i9 with 64GB after a busy day of work. I had more memory than I needed in my old iMac because it was really cheap to upgrade it myself so I just bought four 16GB sticks not long after I ordered it with only 8GB from the factory so I could save money. But it doesn't make sense because the M3 Max shares memory with the GPU. I thought my usage would be higher. You're a wizard, Apple!

I probably could've gotten 48GB and be fine, but I'm planning to use this for 6-7 years. Still glad I spent the $200 now because you can't do it later. But 128GB? That's absurd for most people, especially on these things for whatever reason. Only really useful for huge Logic and FCP projects and completely loading large AI models into memory. And even if it does have to swap to the SSD on occasion for more regular use, that's still 7000 MB/s. It's not like the olden days when it's hitting a rickety spinning drive going like 90MB/s on a good day if it's not too full and with really slow random access and a tiny cache.

 

[hovscorpion12]

Well. With Dynamic Cache on the M3, it’s unclear if the old rule of “MacOS” uses as much RAM is still valid.

 

[hovscorpion12]

“Dynamic Caching that, unlike traditional GPUs, allocates the use of local memory in hardware in real time. With Dynamic Caching, only the exact amount of memory needed is used for each task. This is an industry first, transparent to developers, and the cornerstone of the new GPU architecture. It dramatically increases the average utilization of the GPU, which significantly increases performance for the most demanding pro apps and games.”

 

[macduke]

“Dynamic Caching that, unlike traditional GPUs, allocates the use of local memory in hardware in real time. With Dynamic Caching, only the exact amount of memory needed is used for each task. This is an industry first, transparent to developers, and the cornerstone of the new GPU architecture. It dramatically increases the average utilization of the GPU, which significantly increases performance for the most demanding pro apps and games.”

I believe it. That's the only thing that could realistically explain what I saw over my first day. But isn't it mainly for the GPU? I mean, I guess that helps since it's shared, but holy cow. Expected it to use 8GB more shared and it used 8GB less than I was before doing the same kind of tasks. Something else I noticed is that with the iStat widget on, I've been watching it closely, and it seemed like it was paring back a lot more than my old Intel one does, that just sits in the same spot most of the day. Like there would be several times I would see it drop below the 50% mark in my little pie chart widget in my menu bar, and it would be like 28GB for a while. Meanwhile my iMac hardly ever during a work day drops below 42GB on the low end.

 

[hovscorpion12]

I believe it. That's the only thing that could realistically explain what I saw over my first day. But isn't it mainly for the GPU? I mean, I guess that helps since it's shared, but holy cow. Expected it to use 8GB more shared and it used 8GB less than I was before doing the same kind of tasks. Something else I noticed is that with the iStat widget on, I've been watching it closely, and it seemed like it was paring back a lot more than my old Intel one does, that just sits in the same spot most of the day. Like there would be several times I would see it drop below the 50% mark in my little pie chart widget in my menu bar, and it would be like 28GB for a while. Meanwhile my iMac hardly ever during a work day drops below 42GB on the low end.

yes, it is mainly GPU related. I don’t have my M3 yet, so I can’t deep dive confirm if it works on other applications that are more cpu heavy or use less GPU. Safari tabs for example, or Photoshop

 

[jav6454]

Well. With Dynamic Cache on the M3, it’s unclear if the old rule of “MacOS” uses as much RAM is still valid.

On M3+ perhaps it won't. Older models, I'd say it is still a thing.

 

[Fishrrman]

"128gb RAM on M3 Max worth it?"

If you need it,
and
If you can afford it,
then
I suppose it's "worth it"...

 

[richinaus]

I often feel I am hitting the RAM limit of my 64gb, then just close Safari, and all is well again

 

[mdhaus72]

This is a true assessment, the fact the OSX tries to use unused RAM as a cache stash is what can create issues as the true usage is normally hidden this way.

I mean, you could try to see how the Active portion of RAM is doing, but there is always a small variance there.

Exactly. This is why so many people look at their machines and think, "Oh, my God! Look at how much RAM I'm using! I should have upgraded! I better pay a crap-ton of money to get more next time!" And in reality, they likely don't need to....The numbers will always be deceiving.

It's why I think the MacBooks with super-high amounts of RAM are almost always not worth it, especially with how much extra you have to pay to get it.

 

[mdhaus72]

Well, I can tell you this much: So far my M3 Max with 64GB is running about 8GB lower than my Intel i9 with 64GB after a busy day of work. I had more memory than I needed in my old iMac because it was really cheap to upgrade it myself so I just bought four 16GB sticks not long after I ordered it with only 8GB from the factory so I could save money. But it doesn't make sense because the M3 Max shares memory with the GPU. I thought my usage would be higher. You're a wizard, Apple!

I probably could've gotten 48GB and be fine, but I'm planning to use this for 6-7 years. Still glad I spent the $200 now because you can't do it later. But 128GB? That's absurd for most people, especially on these things for whatever reason. Only really useful for huge Logic and FCP projects and completely loading large AI models into memory. And even if it does have to swap to the SSD on occasion for more regular use, that's still 7000 MB/s. It's not like the olden days when it's hitting a rickety spinning drive going like 90MB/s on a good day if it's not too full and with really slow random access and a tiny cache.

I think it was a good decision for you to pay the extra $200 for the upgrade to 64GB. I made that same jump. For me, I was using my education discount and for that reason, it only cost $180 to do it. It didn't make much sense to pass up an extra 16GB for that little amount of money.

 

[danwells]

The M3 Max is an EXTREMELY powerful machine, and can do things that will easily exceed 64 GB of RAM. The question is whether you're doing those things... I'm going to do 128 GB, because I work with very large still images, and would like to keep the machine a long time. One thing to think about is that, while the upgrade is painfully expensive ($800), will it get an extra year out of the machine for you? If the answer is "yes", it's almost certainly worth it.

Another consideration is that you should CERTAINLY buy the 16" if you're anywhere close to looking at 128 GB. You don't mention which size you're looking at, but the 16" has MUCH better cooling. If you're going to use a ton of RAM, you are probably going to be using sustained high-power workflows as well. The better cooling will make the 16" go faster (no throttling), be less noisy (the 14" will scream the fans trying to cool itself at the edge of its capabilities while the 16" loafs along), and last longer due to cooler components.

From the numbers I've seen, I wouldn't consider the 14" in anything bigger than a full-power M3 Pro, or MAYBE the 14-core Max with 36 GB of RAM. If you need more than that, you probably want the better cooling...

 

[jav6454]

Exactly. This is why so many people look at their machines and think, "Oh, my God! Look at how much RAM I'm using! I should have upgraded! I better pay a crap-ton of money to get more next time!" And in reality, they likely don't need to....The numbers will always be deceiving.

It's why I think the MacBooks with super-high amounts of RAM are almost always not worth it, especially with how much extra you have to pay to get it.

I for one, always check my usage to see where I land. I have found that at 16GB, I'm always about to or hitting Swap.

 

[A.R.E.A.M.]

worth it for me because i dont have to worry about "nickel and diming" the ram usage/activity monitor/closing out apps. i can just leave things open and not worry about bottlenecks/slowdowns, etc etc etc,,,.

 

[pi6xjdskfa]

The M3 Max is an EXTREMELY powerful machine, and can do things that will easily exceed 64 GB of RAM. The question is whether you're doing those things... I'm going to do 128 GB, because I work with very large still images, and would like to keep the machine a long time. One thing to think about is that, while the upgrade is painfully expensive ($800), will it get an extra year out of the machine for you? If the answer is "yes", it's almost certainly worth it.

Another consideration is that you should CERTAINLY buy the 16" if you're anywhere close to looking at 128 GB. You don't mention which size you're looking at, but the 16" has MUCH better cooling. If you're going to use a ton of RAM, you are probably going to be using sustained high-power workflows as well. The better cooling will make the 16" go faster (no throttling), be less noisy (the 14" will scream the fans trying to cool itself at the edge of its capabilities while the 16" loafs along), and last longer due to cooler components.

From the numbers I've seen, I wouldn't consider the 14" in anything bigger than a full-power M3 Pro, or MAYBE the 14-core Max with 36 GB of RAM. If you need more than that, you probably want the better cooling...

I am editing 50 megapixel still images in Capture One and performance is good with 64gb. Just wanting to see if there are any benefits to 128gb for final cut x 8k editing or capture one. I was not going to upgrade but due to tax purposes deductions I feel this would be a worthy upgrade as my old M1 is about 700 days old. I travel often and would love to get the 16 but it's way too heavy for my backpack on long commutes in and out of city. also, my backpacks are too small for 16. Apple offered $1600 for Macbook 14" 2021 tradein. Not sure if this is a good trade. Might just keep it as backup.

 

[pi6xjdskfa]

worth it for me because i dont have to worry about "nickel and diming" the ram usage/activity monitor/closing out apps. i can just leave things open and not worry about bottlenecks/slowdowns, etc etc etc,,,.

i don't think i've hit 64gb ram usage when i've had activity monitor on. however, want to make sure i can futureproof this for at least 2-3 years.

 

[smirking]

i don't think i've hit 64gb ram usage when i've had activity monitor on. however, want to make sure i can futureproof this for at least 2-3 years.

I'm pretty sure you'll be fine for at least 2-3 years. I intentionally tried to to live off of an 8GB M1 for a few weeks as an experiment and it was surprisingly fine. I probably ran into small bottlenecks, but they weren't noticeable.

I'm a heavy Capture One Pro user. I even had lots of other stuff running at the same time.

 

[miniConverted]

Completely different workflow here, but I've gone from M1 Max with 64GB to M3 Max with 128GB and I'm noticing far greater RAM usage as a result. Looks like macOS is using it like crazy as a cache, but even the memory in use is exceeding the 64GB I used to have without any single app using notably more RAM.

I'm certainly curious as to why this is, but having paid the additional money for the 128GB I'm not hating that it's getting utilised by the system. Performance is incomprehensible (in a good way); and battery life is significantly better than my M1 Max, which has been a relief.

 

[smirking]

Completely different workflow here, but I've gone from M1 Max with 64GB to M3 Max with 128GB and I'm noticing far greater RAM usage as a result. Looks like macOS is using it like crazy as a cache, but even the memory in use is exceeding the 64GB I used to have without any single app using notably more RAM.

I'm certainly curious as to why this is.

MacOS will always be greedy with using up as much RAM as it can if it's there. This is one reason why it's mostly useless for most users to obsess about RAM usage numbers. It doesn't necessarily mean it needs to use that RAM for anything. If it's open, it'll be claimed.

You're also still going to be using at least some swap even with all that RAM. It's just the OS working as it's supposed to. It's not an indication that 128GB of RAM still isn't enough.

 

[Iwavvns]

I ran BSD/UNIX for years, and our rule of thumb was “unused ram is wasted ram”. Doesn’t that also apply to macOS which is based on BSD?