M1 Pro 32GB not worth it?

[fpenta]

Hello guys,
I know this is probably the million post regarding the 16 vs 32 RAM topic but I still can't decide on which one to choose according to my situation.

I'm a photographer and do extensive processing with Lightroom, Photoshop, Premiere and After Effect.

I am currently using an iMac 27" 2019 with 64GB ram as a workstation and want to upgrade once the iMac with Silicon comes out.

I just sold my maxed out MacBook Pro 2018 15" i9, 1TB, 32GB, that I paid around 4600€ three years ago, and sold it now for €1500.

After losing quite a lot of money on that computer I swore to myself that I would have never spent this much on an apple computer with those insane Apple custom pricing (especially here in Europe), and only going for the base configuration models and upgrade every 2 to 3 years.

Upgrading the 16" M1 Pro to 32GB of RAM is 400€ and only 200€ away from the M1 Max 24GB. This is very tempting but, as always, deceptive.

I know that for my workflow I need 32GB of RAM, but because of the super fast ssd and bandwidth of the Apple Silicon chip, is it really worth spending the extra 400€ that I could save for next generation M3 or on the new iMac?
I don't care about the 5 min more export time if I can save 400€ I just need the computer to be smooth even when reaching high memory pressure.

Let me know what you think!

 

[Blue Sun]

If you needed 64 GB of RAM in an Intel-based Mac, then 32 GB of unified memory in an M1 Pro MBP should be suitable. I myself picked up a 14” M1 Pro 10/16 32 GB MBP and it has been brilliant. Great battery life and tonnes of memory headroom.

 

[fpenta]

If you needed 64 GB of RAM in an Intel-based Mac, then 32 GB of unified memory in an M1 Pro MBP should be suitable. I myself picked up a 14” M1 Pro 10/16 32 GB MBP and it has been brilliant. Great battery life and tonnes of memory headroom.

Yeah but on the iMac the RAM was user replaceable (ordered 8GB). I didn’t pay the extra apple tax to add more ram, so doesn’t really count.

If I had to order a new iMac now I would order it with 32GB probably.

 

[geta]

Post in thread '14 inch MacBook Pro - is it overkill?'
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/14-inch-macbook-pro-is-it-overkill.2335162/post-30888831

 

[saudor]

I personally would wait it out unless you need a portable machine now. The memory leaks in M-based computer can get annoying with basic stuff like control center using 90gb of ram. It's a hit/miss.

Also, my adobe stuff eats a ton of RAM (seems to eat more and more with newer versions) and with no future memory upgrade paths, I would be uneasy getting something that just about meets my current needs.

 

[wilberforce]

I have a 14" M1 Pro with 16GB RAM and do PS and LR.

Although 16GB is OK, if I were to buy it again I would get 32GB. Reason is that these Adobe apps use a lot of memory for GPU acceleration, and thus use a lot MORE memory on Apple Silicon than an Intel machine (which has separate GPU RAM). If you disable use of the GPU in PS and LR, then 16GB is fine, but I doubt you would want to disable use of the GPU (which makes zooming etc smoother in these apps).
It also depends on how big files you edit. For normal out-of-camera ~50 megapixel files, 16GB is OK, for larger files 32GB would be better.
In short, you can probably get by with 16GB as a stopgap machine, but 32GB would be far preferred.

 

[fpenta]

I have a 14" M1 Pro with 16GB RAM and do PS and LR.

Although 16GB is OK, if I were to buy it again I would get 32GB. Reason is that these Adobe apps use a lot of memory for GPU acceleration, and thus use a lot MORE memory on Apple Silicon than an Intel machine (which has separate GPU RAM). If you disable use of the GPU in PS and LR, then 16GB is fine, but I doubt you would want to disable use of the GPU (which makes zooming etc smoother in these apps).
It also depends on how big files you edit. For normal out-of-camera ~50 megapixel files, 16GB is OK, for larger files 32GB would be better.
In short, you can probably get by with 16GB as a stopgap machine, but 32GB would be far preferred.

Thanks. I usually deal with big psb files (around 5GB) with multiple layers in PS and do also timelapses using Lightroom Premiere and After Effect so I'm sure the system will often use swap.
32GB will be better for sure but nothing that the 16GB can't do either. And then there is the resale value problem.
How much of 400€ for the 32GB will I get once I will sell the Mac in two years, when more powerful systems will be out?
My heart wants the 32GB but my head says 16GB will be fine too also considering the fact that this won't be my only Mac. Getting the 16GB will make me save more for the new iMac.

What do you think?

 

[JPack]

You overbought RAM with the 2018 MacBook Pro, but that's not the same situation today.

 

[wilberforce]

Thanks. I usually deal with big psb files (around 5GB) with multiple layers in PS and do also timelapses using Lightroom Premiere and After Effect so I'm sure the system will often use swap.
32GB will be better for sure but nothing that the 16GB can't do either. And then there is the resale value problem.
How much of 400€ for the 32GB will I get once I will sell the Mac in two years, when more powerful systems will be out?
My heart wants the 32GB but my head says 16GB will be fine too also considering the fact that this won't be my only Mac. Getting the 16GB will make me save more for the new iMac.

What do you think?

If you are not sure, go pick up a base 14" and take advantage of Apple's 14-day try-out period, and test it yourself. Some people are reluctant to do this, thinking they are somehow cheating Apple or this is unethical, but this is exactly why Apple provides 14 days to try it out and encourages you to do so.
In terms of resale value, usually upgrades get you 10 cents on the dollar in resale value, as buyers of used machines are looking for lowest cost. However, I think there may be higher demand for machines with more than the base RAM, so you might get 50% of the upgrade cost back, at the most. Just IMO.

 

[bobcomer]

I'd get the 32G. $400 is chicken feed over the lifetime I would own it and my time is worth more than that.

I have 128G on my Windows desktop, and I use it. I have 64G in my Mac Mini. That said, for a laptop, I probably wouldn't go higher than 32G, but I'd think about it for awhile.

 

[IJBrekke]

Apple historically structures their pricing schemes to offer a “Goldilocks” zone of features vs. price point. Currently, that means 16 GB on their laptop lines - the 32 GB is prohibitively expensive for any sort of casual throw-in upgrade, it really is purpose-built.

One way that I have always read their price scheming: They are showing their cards on what configurations will run MacOS well for the next 3-4 years at minimum. Apple intends the majority of users to have 16 GB without a lot of complaining, so they will be optimizing with this RAM ceiling in mind for most things.

All to say, you may have a use-case where you need 32. But you over-bought last time around and the rest of the computer became outdated before memory pressure was the central issue. If I were you, I would probably give 16 GB a healthy test drive and plan to move to a 32 GB machine when that becomes more attainable to the masses.

 

[AustinIllini]

I have an M1 Pro 14" 16 GB RAM and I am never under any memory pressure.

 

[wilberforce]

I have an M1 Pro 14" 16 GB RAM and I am never under any memory pressure.

Using LR and PS? That is the issue. I too am seldom under high memory pressure with 16GB, except when using these two Adobe apps

 

[LinkRS]

There are tons of posts claiming that RAM is somehow more "magical" on Apple Silicon based systems. This is pure bunk, RAM is RAM. If you need 32GB, you will still need it with a new Mac. The SSDs are fast, but still not as fast DRAM, plus you probably don't want the extra wear and tear on your non-replaceable SSD due to excessive swapping caused by too little physical RAM.

 

[wilberforce]

One way that I have always read their price scheming: They are showing their cards on what configurations will run MacOS well for the next 3-4 years at minimum. Apple intends the majority of users to have 16 GB without a lot of complaining, so they will be optimizing with this RAM ceiling in mind for most things.

I don't have as generous a view of Apple. My read on their price scheming: to make as much money as possible. Some of this is by inducing people to pay for expensive upgrades which are pure gravy for Apple.
Such as providing only 8GB RAM on the 13" MacBook PRO (sic), or only 64GB storage on some iPads

 

[Sanpete]

Thanks. I usually deal with big psb files (around 5GB) with multiple layers in PS and do also timelapses using Lightroom Premiere and After Effect so I'm sure the system will often use swap.
32GB will be better for sure but nothing that the 16GB can't do either. And then there is the resale value problem.
How much of 400€ for the 32GB will I get once I will sell the Mac in two years, when more powerful systems will be out?
My heart wants the 32GB but my head says 16GB will be fine too also considering the fact that this won't be my only Mac. Getting the 16GB will make me save more for the new iMac.

What do you think?

If you're not in a hurry, 16 will work. Looks like you would benefit from 32, though. Resale value will likely be proportional to cost either way: more cost will still be more loss.

There are tons of posts claiming that RAM is somehow more "magical" on Apple Silicon based systems.

No there aren't. There are a number posts that show people haven't actually read the posts they're talking about, though.

 

[ignatius345]

If you're on the fence, stretch your budget and get the extra RAM -- if nothing else, to account for ever-increasing demands of software. Even if you're still doing the same exact work in a few years, the OS and the Adobe software you use will start needing more resources to work smoothly with each update -- and that goes double if you start working with bigger image files or video in a more demanding codec or whatever.

 

[IJBrekke]

I don't have as generous a view of Apple. My read on their price scheming: to make as much money as possible. Some of this is by inducing people to pay for expensive upgrades which are pure gravy for Apple.
Such as providing only 8GB RAM on the 13" MacBook PRO (sic), or only 64GB storage on some iPads

Oh don't get me wrong, Apple will always maximize profit. My general point is that there's a cutoff pricing-wise where people will stop upgrading the spec as a "what the hell, why not" click of a button. I think it's easy for people to add +$180/200 to double up their SSD, but fewer will pay the premium to go to 32 GB of RAM.

I'm kind of not counting the M1 machines at this point - they will be updated to 16 GB minimum in a matter of weeks or months. But very fair point on the 64 GB storage for iPads, this is insulting to the customer.

 

[jlehet]

I got the 32 a few weeks ago, so I can’t comment on the 16. On my machine with both Lightroom and Photoshop sessions going, I will sometimes go over 50% memory pressure, for whatever that’s worth. I spent many hours on the decision of 16 vs 32 and in the end decided that I was doing this so that I could have a smooth workflow, so why mess around. The thread from photographers on Fred Miranda’s forums convinced me to go for 32. This machine is absolutely fantastic for Lightroom and Photoshop, I can say that for sure.

Also in my short experience, the screen is very delicate. I already cracked it (just got it back from Apple) and I have no idea how it even happened. So add in Applecare + to your cost.

I moved up from a 2019 16” MacBook Pro with 32GB RAM, and it’s night and day.

Another minor factor to consider if you’re going to keep the machine for a while is that you’ll wear the SSD less with swap files if you are using RAM instead, so it’s possible 32GB RAM preserves the SSD longer. I suppose some people will tell you the SSD will last a very long time, and it’s true, but I am trashing a late 2013 Retina MacBook Pro which seems to have a worn SSD, according to the SMART diagnosis. Nothing says “Failed” but many parameters diagnose as “Old Age” and the thing won’t stay booted for long enough to use. I used it hard with Photoshop/Lightroom for years. And even then I tried to put the PS swap file off the internal SSD and did photo work with an external drive, but the system was swapping to the SSD a lot no doubt.

 

[Technerd108]

Never buy any electronic equipment expecting a return on your investment. electronics and specifically laptops and mobile devices depreciate extremely fast. On a machine less than a year old you can expect 30-50% loss on investment and it just gets worse with time. I think getting 1500 pounds on a 3 year old machine with a now outdated processor is actually pretty good.

As for ram upgrade I think it is not actually a rip off when you consider the cost of fast ddr5 ram right now even socketed let alone unified. I think as others have said the only way for you to know for sure is to pick up a base model and test out the 16gb ram. Anything else is just a guess.

That being said you had 64GB of ram in your old machine so going from that to 16gb might be an issue. Since you said speed is not an issue for you then you could deal with the swapping on 16gb. However I don't believe you would be happy spending as much on a base model machine and having a bottleneck that only gets worse over time. If I were you I would get the extra ram and I would probably get the M1 Max 24 gpu that your workflow would probably benefit from and then call it a day. That is $600 over 3 years if you keep this as long as your old machine and that is roughly $200 a year. Maybe you won't recoup your extra cost but if you are selling your old device around the same cost as one with 16gb of ram I bet yours will sell faster?

All I can say is spending $2500 on a base 16" and worrying if you should spend another $400 seems a bit odd to me. If you are going to keep the device for a while then just be happy with what you get. You are going to have to live with whatever you get for several years, better to feel like the machine has more than enough power for most of its life then always wondering what if I would have gotten the extra ram.

There is always the argument should I buy now or wait. The next big upgrade will be released soon. I could spend less and just buy a new machine every 2 years or so. You could but then you will always have the least performance possible in the new release. It is true that newer will always perform orders of a magnitude better than higher end older equipment-that is how they get you to upgrade. I think this is flawed reasoning though. If you get a middle spec machine then you will be spending the least amount to get the BEST performance now. Then everything you do now will be very responsive and pleasant to use and even for the next 3 years this should hold true. The major switch from Intel to Apple Silicon is now so future processor upgrades will be more incremental rather than revolutionary as the M1 was. That is not to say incremental won't be a big step up rather that for your software needs you shouldn't have major slow downs for a few years if you get a decent machine.

Then there is depreciation. You are basing your logic on the fact you felt you over payed on your last machine but even with Intel it lasted 3 years and you still got about a 30% return after 3 years on obsolete processor which is really good. If you get a base model now it will depreciate rapidly and say you get the base 16" for $2500 well in 3 years it may be worth $1000 or less so you will still be getting the same return on investment and possibly had to suffer reduced performance for your use case.

Moral of the long story is get what you want now and worry about ROI later because no matter what buying electronics is a losing proposition unless you are making money with it and if the device is generating revenue then you really should not care about the ROI. Just my 2 cents!

 

[G5isAlive]

Thanks. I usually deal with big psb files (around 5GB) with multiple layers in PS and do also timelapses using Lightroom Premiere and After Effect so I'm sure the system will often use swap.
32GB will be better for sure but nothing that the 16GB can't do either. And then there is the resale value problem.
How much of 400€ for the 32GB will I get once I will sell the Mac in two years, when more powerful systems will be out?
My heart wants the 32GB but my head says 16GB will be fine too also considering the fact that this won't be my only Mac. Getting the 16GB will make me save more for the new iMac.

What do you think?

You are over thinking this. You have acknowledged you could use the 32gb, that you work with large files, but somehow have decided 400 pounds is worth all this angst over a perceived problem in 2 years. Yep you won't get that 400 back, maybe only 200 of it back, so that means you net loss if you will is a whole 200. Get it and be happy.

 

[gradi]

This is an interesting video. No one would load their computer down with so many programs, heavy duty programs, running at the same time, but it gives an extreme stress test to see how things work out.

16GB vs 32GB RAM M1 Pro MacBook - Multitasking RAM TEST

In this video, we run various benchmarks like video editing, photo editing, programming, and much more between the 16GB RAM M1 Pro MacBook Pro and the 32GB RAM M1 Pro MacBook Pro!

We run all of these tests to find out if it's actually worth spending the extra $400 on the 32GB of RAM or NOT!

I am thinking of getting a 14" M1 Pro MacBook 16gb/512gb. I use Lightroom Classic, etc., no video editing.

 

[ck1984]

What could be overkill is getting a 16" Macbook Pro *and* an iMac, especially if you're price-conscious. In the Intel days, it made more sense because the iMacs could have significantly more CPU/GPU power but all indications are the Apple Silicon chips for both will be identical. Get the LG 5k monitor and a nice docking station and you won't need to buy 2 maxed-out machines every time you want to upgrade. Not as tidy as the all-in-one but you also don't need to worry about juggling your data between two machines.

Worth considering if you haven't already, anyway. I'd probably at least wait to see if they release the new iMacs next week and see what their performance looks like.

As for 16 vs 32, I'd be wary of commenters that haven't experienced real-world performance issues. I see lots of people saying "16gb has been fine for me" and lots of people saying "16gb *could* be a problem because of high memory numbers/etc", but not a lot of people saying "I got a 16gb and am now experiencing performance issues". (I have a 16gb and I've never experienced anything that felt like memory pressure, but I also don't push it really.)

 

[JPack]

I'm a photographer and do extensive processing with Lightroom, Photoshop, Premiere and After Effect.

Based on real world workflow, yes 32GB and 64GB show appreciable advantages if you do composites and panos. A lot other YouTube comparisons aren't based on real workflows.

 

[Super Angulon]

According to max tech I just got mbp16 16gb/1TB last week. While editing my work lightroom makes memory pressure in yellow all the time let alone photoshop, swap files are 4-7gb. My library are em1 and a7r3 files. I'm going to return it and buy 32 instead.