M1 Ultra 64GB or 128GB

[Maccho]

Looking for some advice here.

Gearing up to replace my 2010 27inch iMac with a Mac Studio. My thoughts are M1 Ultra, but not sure to go 64GB or 128GB.

My primary use is 3D modelling and animations (mainly this), some video production (which includes live streaming for events and post-production exporting), then some photo editing. I use Cinema4D, Adobe Photoshop, Premiere Pro After Effects, Illustrator and Audition.

I have heard somewhere (I can't remember which YouTube video review) say that the M1 Ultra can't use all 128GB of unified memory so 64GB is the wiser choice. Though I am wondering if this is merely a software issue and future iterations of MacOS and other software will optimise and allow the use of the full 128GB memory.

Any advice would be great! Not super tight on money, can afford the 128GB but if I can save a bit that would be get.

Thanks in advanced!
Maccho

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

I have heard somewhere (I can't remember which YouTube video review) say that the M1 Ultra can't use all 128GB of unified memory

That is of course not true at all.

 

[F-Train]

Looking for some advice here.

Gearing up to replace my 2010 27inch iMac with a Mac Studio... I have heard somewhere (I can't remember which YouTube video review) say that the M1 Ultra can't use all 128GB of unified memory so 64GB is the wiser choice.

Does your iMac have enough RAM and graphics for what you're doing or not? If so, how much does it fall short?

I think that people who need 128GB of memory know it. One example is composers working with a large number of orchestral virtual instrument tracks. Many of these people are fine with 64GB of memory; some, especially professionals working on things like feature film scores, need 128GB, and those people don't need advice on whether they need that much memory.

On the second issue, a Mac Studio will use as much memory as is available and needed for the task at hand. The comment that you refer to may have been about single-threading and multi-threading, which is a different issue.

 

[Mr Screech]

Go for the 128GB if you use 3D/After Effects a lot.
This isn't only processor RAM, it's also memory for the 'videocard' so it should help creating 3D scenes. With scripts like 'render garden' you can max out the exporting performance in After Effects.
Photo/video-editing + 3D rendering will barely show performance increase though.

 

[F-Train]

Go for the 128GB if you use 3D/After Effects a lot.
This isn't only processor RAM, it's also memory for the 'videocard' so it should help creating 3D scenes. With scripts like 'render garden' you can max out the exporting performance in After Effects.
Photo/video-editing + 3D rendering will barely show performance increase though.

I don't think that it makes any sense to tell someone who has a 2010 iMac with unknown RAM and graphics memory, who has no specific complaints about the iMac's performance, that he should spend an additional US$800 to upgrade Ultra memory from 64GB to 128GB.

 

[Feek]

Looking for some advice here.

How much memory do you currently have? Do you regularly run out of memory?

 

[Mr Screech]

I don't think that it makes any sense to tell someone who has a 2010 iMac with unknown RAM and graphics memory, who has no specific complaints about the iMac's performance, that he should spend an additional US$800 to upgrade Ultra memory from 64GB to 128GB.

$800 on an Ultra is not that much percentage wise and since his old computer is 12 years old, might as well make the new one more future proof.

 

[Sharky II]

Have you currently been using those apps on your 2010 iMac, or do you have a machine eg at work and this is your home computer?

 

[F-Train]

$800 on an Ultra is not that much percentage wise and since his old computer is 12 years old, might as well make the new one more future proof.

What? US$800 adds a full 20% to the cost of a base Ultra. If cost and actual, demonstrable need don't matter, and this is all about so-called "future-proofing", might as well just tell him to wait for June 9th and, if it's announced, buy the new Mac Pro

It isn't obvious from the first post that Maccho needs an Ultra, let alone one with 128GB of memory. What he actually says is "My thoughts are M1 Ultra..." The most important thing from his post is that he's been misinformed about how Mac Studio memory works.

 

[Mr Screech]

"My primary use is 3D modelling and animations"

An Ultra will basically speed up 3D rendering by 100%.
128GB will help him model more sophisticated geometry and allow for more/bigger textures.

Animations, as in After Effects, 128GB will allow for twice as long ram preview and with certain scripts allow his exports to go 3-4 times as fast compared to the standard renderer. Why? Because 128GB allows for more instances to render.

If he intends to keep this machine for at least 10 years like his previous machine, $800 shouldn't be that much of an expense. In 5-10 years, 8k projects might be more widely used and 4k will be standard, another reason for 128GB.

 

[F-Train]

"My primary use is 3D modelling and animations"

An Ultra will basically speed up 3D rendering by 100%.
128GB will help him model more sophisticated geometry and allow for more/bigger textures.

Animations, as in After Effects, 128GB will allow for twice as long ram preview and with certain scripts allow his exports to go 3-4 times as fast compared to the standard renderer. Why? Because 128GB allows for more instances to render.

If he intends to keep this machine for at least 10 years like his previous machine, $800 shouldn't be that much of an expense. In 5-10 years, 8k projects might be more widely used and 4k will be standard, another reason for 128GB.

All you're saying is that some people who use these programmes will benefit significantly from 128GB of memory and that a person who intends to use his MacStudio for a decade or more should be thinking about potential needs ten or more years down the road.

So what? A 14 year old can say that. Literally nothing that you're saying is based on actual information about his current iMac and any deficiencies in its performance, or on what actual demands he places on these programmes. Nor does he say anything about how long he intends to use this computer. Here's better advice. Don't buy a computer that can't be upgraded based on what you might or might not need in 2032 in the first place. Seriously, you might just as well tell him to buy the next Mac Pro.

Meanwhile, so-called "future proofing" wasn't even mentioned in your post #4 above, now all of a sudden it's a major part of your "argument"

As a matter of curiosity, do you believe that most of the people who use After Effects have 128GB of memory in their computer? Or even 64GB? I'll tell you what I think. I think that the percentage of people using After Effects with 128GB of memory is really, really small.

 

[Maccho]

Thanks everyone for your advice. This is all really useful and I apologise for my ignorance regarding memory usage.

My current 2010 iMac was really slow (2.9 GHz, Quad Core i7, 16GB ram, 1GB graphics ram on ATI Radeon card, 1TB HDD) and actually the graphics card got fried just a couple months back. I have been holding out for an updated iMac Pro (whenever that will be announced, if at all). But saw the Mac Studio might be a suitable replacement.

When my iMac was still alive, working with slightly high polygon count models would slow the computer down heaps and rendering times were quite long for some simple scenes. Once you start to add particles, reflective surfaces with various refractive-indexes and complex materials, render times went through the roof (I am talking days).

And typically when working in Cinema4D, I'd have to shut down all my other programs. So, I would say I ran out of memory quite often. But since the computer wasn't broke, I never thought of upgrading. But seems like I need to upgrade as working on a laptop isn't cutting it at the moment.

 

[Mr Screech]

As a matter of curiosity, do you believe that most of the people who use After Effects have 128GB of memory in their computer? Or even 64GB? I'll tell you what I think. I think that the percentage of people using After Effects with 128GB of memory is really, really small.

Yes, any pro using After Effects maxes out its RAM.
And if time is money, saving on RAM is an extremely bad idea.

 

[F-Train]

Yes, any pro using After Effects maxes out its RAM.
And if time is money, saving on RAM is an extremely bad idea.

More of your grasping at straws. Where does he say that he's a pro? Right, he doesn't. Are you seriously suggesting that people who make their living with these programmes use 12 year old iMacs?

There are people making YouTube videos who have millions of followers who use After Effects regularly. I don't believe for a second that they have 128GB of memory in their computers. Or are those people, in your make believe world, not pros, which course you bold face

 

[F-Train]

Thanks everyone for your advice. This is all really useful and I apologise for my ignorance regarding memory usage.

My current 2010 iMac was really slow (2.9 GHz, Quad Core i7, 16GB ram, 1GB graphics ram on ATI Radeon card, 1TB HDD) and actually the graphics card got fried just a couple months back. I have been holding out for an updated iMac Pro (whenever that will be announced, if at all). But saw the Mac Studio might be a suitable replacement.

When my iMac was still alive, working with slightly high polygon count models would slow the computer down heaps and rendering times were quite long for some simple scenes. Once you start to add particles, reflective surfaces with various refractive-indexes and complex materials, render times went through the roof (I am talking days).

And typically when working in Cinema4D, I'd have to shut down all my other programs. So, I would say I ran out of memory quite often. But since the computer wasn't broke, I never thought of upgrading. But seems like I need to upgrade as working on a laptop isn't cutting it at the moment.

I assume that you aren't using these programmes to make a living. If it's a hobby, it becomes a matter of how much you want to spend on your hobby. In your place, I'd be talking with people who have a fair amount of experience with the specific programmes that you're talking about, and importantly at the loads that you're talking about, when choosing whether to get a Max or Ultra and at what specs.

The fact of the matter is that claims in certain posts in this thread that one should have 128GB of memory to run something like After Effects are, for the vast majority of users, complete rubbish.

 

[Mr Screech]

More of your grasping at straws.

Seriously, what's wrong with you?

 

[Maccho]

I assume that you aren't using these programmes to make a living. If it's a hobby, it becomes a matter of how much you want to spend on your hobby. In your place, I'd be talking with people who have a fair amount of experience with the specific programmes that you're talking about, and importantly at the loads that you're talking about, when choosing whether to get a Max or Ultra and at what specs.

The fact of the matter is that claims in certain posts in this thread that one should have 128GB of memory to run something like After Effects are, for the vast majority of users, complete rubbish.

It's mostly a hobby, part of which I actually use for my day job as well. You're correct about it depends how much I want to spend on this machine that essentially isn't my primary income source.

Thanks again for the insight, it's really helped with making this decision. Everyone's input has been useful to me and allowed me to consider my choice from various angles which is what I wanted.

 

[Gr1f]

FWIW I always believe that getting the highest spec you can gives a Mac a longer useful lifespan. Get the max you can afford today and you'll be happy you did in a year or 3.

 

[wilberforce]

Flipping a coin will be more reliable than getting input from MR forums about how much RAM to get, on any device.
It is impossible to sort the valid opinions from the invalid (yet strenuous) ones. Also, due to the extremely unrepresentative sample of people posting, the majority opinion is often also invalid.

 

[Maccho]

FWIW I always believe that getting the highest spec you can gives a Mac a longer useful lifespan. Get the max you can afford today and you'll be happy you did in a year or 3.

I like this philosophy. I had the same idea when I bought my iMac back in 2010, just maxed every out and got the top of the line at the time and it's served me well.

 

[Belifant]

Funny, I have exactly the same usage case and I am also switching from a 2010 MacPro to a Studio. For me, the Ultra's 20 core CPU was a clear choice, I can very much use those cores. I went for 48 GPU cores because I don't think I can even use those cores fully in the near future. 2 Tb SSD to save a bit of money, and then the RAM question was indeed the hardest one. All good advice in this thread, but I ended up ordering 128 Gb and I am glad I did (Haven't received the studio yet). Unlike our old computers, the RAM is shared between system and GPU, not separate.

So you will never have 128 GB of system RAM available, some of it will be used by the GPU. Or the other way around in some cases. Also, Mac OS will always use all the RAM available, so there should be some benefits to it across the system, not specific apps. Unlike GPU cores who need specific app features to be useful.

 

[MajorFubar]

If you are a professional rather than just a hobbyist with deep pockets the most objective answer would be to ask yourself if the 128GB will pay for itself by giving your machine a longer useful life and / or increasing your productivity. It's a tool to do a job, like a saw. If a better saw allows you to complete jobs quicker so you can get paid sooner and move on to the next job sooner, obviously you buy the better saw.

 

[MajorFubar]

FWIW I always believe that getting the highest spec you can gives a Mac a longer useful lifespan. Get the max you can afford today and you'll be happy you did in a year or 3.

That's sound advice but there are limitations. I blew my savings on a fully maxed-out 27" i7 3.4GHz iMac in 2011 with all the options-boxes ticked. It was hugely over-specified for my needs, but I figured it would last me at least twice as long as a cheaper model, justifying the splurge. Within five years its hardware was just as obsolete as if I'd saved half my money and bought the bottom of the range model, which still would have done everything I wanted.

 

[F-Train]

I ended up ordering 128 Gb and I am glad I did (haven't received the studio yet)... Mac OS will always use all the RAM available, so there should be some benefits to it across the system, not specific apps.

My Mac Studio is currently using 10.82GB of memory out of 64GB with Safari (30 tabs open), Apple Mail, iMessage, etc running. By adding Final Cut, Compressor, Motion and Logic I was able to get it to 11.61GB out of 64GB.

 

[m1maverick]

Flipping a coin will be more reliable than getting input from MR forums about how much RAM to get, on any device.
It is impossible to sort the valid opinions from the invalid (yet strenuous) ones. Also, due to the extremely unrepresentative sample of people posting, the majority opinion is often also invalid.

His situation is a prime example of why Apple should be producing (affordable) systems with memory (and internal storage) which can be user upgraded.