M4 Max Studio Only 128GB

[dymac]

I have been running Intel MacPro for many years now with at least 192GB of Ram. Most of the time doing my routine work Activity Monitor show using between 150GB and 180GB.

I am trying to get my head around why not more RAM available in the M4 Max. I do not do video work, mostly prepress related work like a couple of instances of LR, and PS, ID, IL. Checking AM it shows the Wacom Tablet Driver using 13.6GB of RAM which seems excessive. I know I can get more RAM in the M3 Ultra but I think with my workflow the M4 Max would make more sense but I just can't bring myself to consider to go that low on RAM.

I am wondering what others think about this issue. I am very hesitant to go for a M4 Max with that low of RAM considering that it also is used for video.

 

[chrfr]

It's certainly a bug in the Wacom driver if it's using that much RAM. I'd make sure you're fully updated and if so then restart the computer and that number will be lower.

 

[dymac]

It is a Intuos4 XL and I can not update the driver. All the new tablets are much smaller.

 

[picpicmac]

I am trying to get my head around why not more RAM available in the M4 Max.

It uses four LPDDR for memory. And only four. Sometime three (in the base, fixed options case.)

The highest capacity LPDDR is 32GB, so 4x32=128.

Remember, Apple considers its Macintosh line as a portable computer line, with desktops taking a back seat.

Somehow Apple found some 64GB LPDDR for the M3 Ultra, or the Apple engineers found some fancy work-around, as the M3 Ultra has 8 memory controllers which with 32GB each gives 256GB of RAM.

Anyway, it has been shown by others that the M4 Max is faster than the M3 Ultra for Photoshop, as PS does not do parallelization.

However, for most other software (including LightRoom) the extra cores of the M3 Ultra gives it the edge.

 

[whwang]

According to tests here:

Mac Studio with M3 Ultra Review: A Dream Machine for Video Editors

A cross-generational hiccup for photographers and a revelation for video editors.

petapixel.com

M3 Ultra is faster than M4 Max on LR, but slower on PS. If you use both, that sort of cancels out.

Simply based on speed and after considering the price difference, it's hard to recommend M3 Ultra. M3 Ultra only makes sense when you really need more than 128GB of RAM. Do you really need that much RAM? I found Activity Monitor's total "memory used" quite misleading. At this moment, on my 128 GB machine, with all major applications closed, Activity Monitor says I am using 77 GB of RAM out of 128 GB. I am sure it's not really using that much. On the other hand, when I am certain I am running something intense using a specific program, the memory usage of that particular program shown in Activity Monitor should be a much better indicator of what's really needed.

 

[JSRinUK]

I went with the 128GB M4 Max because the only M3U in my budget window would have been 96GB. Today, when using LLMs activity monitor often shows “memory used” at 120GB (if using a 90GB LLM). So glad I didn’t go for the M3U with 96GB.

I’m sure for many it’s fine, but 96GB was an odd choice.

 

[dymac]

And I still need to source Thunderbolt 5 PCI extension chassis before I would consider going the Studio route.

 

[aUsern@me]

I found Activity Monitor's total "memory used" quite misleading. At this moment, on my 128 GB machine, with all major applications closed, Activity Monitor says I am using 77 GB of RAM out of 128 GB.

I think Apple is incentivized to keep Activity Monitor's memory reporting confusing - people buy more RAM than they really need.
The only reporting that really matters is Memory Pressure. As long as you're in the green during your typical workflow, you're good.

In your case, let's say you had 256 GB or RAM. Activity Monitor would likely report then report that you're using 144 GB out of 256 GB. At the same time, let's say you "only" had 64 GB, it might report that you're using 38 GB out of 64 GB.

So how much RAM do you need? Reboot your Mac. Open your two most demanding applications - Logic, Premiere, C4D, After Effects, Xcode, etc… Then open your two most demanding projects and render, export, compile or whatever. Check Activity Monitor - that's how much RAM you really need. Now, double, or triple if you really want to be safe, that number - that's how much RAM you should buy. Buying 3X your actual RAM usage is probably overkill - but that leaves room for multi-tasking and growth.

Some people's projects really won't fit within 128 GB, or even 256 GB, of RAM. AI and LLMs come to mind. For those workflows, you really don't want to be swapping. I'm guessing 90%+ of Mac users would be more than fine with 64 GB of RAM - certainly within 128 GB or RAM. Simply, we overestimate our RAM needs because we don't understand what Activity Monitor is reporting. It reports that Photoshop is using 50 GB when our Mac has 64 GB and people think, "Oh damn, I need more RAM."

 

[JouniS]

The only reporting that really matters is Memory Pressure. As long as you're in the green during your typical workflow, you're good.

I don't find memory pressure particularly useful. It's a poorly defined magic number, and the formula behind it probably changes with macOS updates. It usually works well enough, but sometimes it's just misleading.

Compressed memory usage seems to be a more useful metric, at least in my use cases. When it starts climbing, especially for the processes you are actually using, there is often noticeable slowdown. But memory pressure might still be in the green.

 

[aUsern@me]

It's a poorly defined magic number, and the formula behind it probably changes with macOS updates.

I do agree that it is kind of a "magic number," in that it's trying to give your normie computer user an easily understood representation of many different metrics that all interact. I see no evidence that the formula has changed over macOS versions or updates.

Compressed memory usage seems to be a more useful metric, at least in my use cases. When it starts climbing, especially for the processes you are actually using, there is often noticeable slowdown. But memory pressure might still be in the green.

Compressed memory can be a really telling stat. But I've never seen compressed memory go up significantly without memory pressure dipping into the yellow or worse.

 

[Chancha]

Memory pressure is a metric that considers a few perimeters, including memory compression, so, one entails the other but not the other way.

In general the system tries to cascades in this order: real physical memory > compressed but still real > swap pagein
Memory pressure looks at all these, and also consider frequency / timing to give you a general index. Sometimes even if lots of apps are opened, with project assets in hundreds of GBs, macOS would still think pressure is fine since the user just leave them behind and only using the front most app or two for like half and hour, instead of juggling between every opened file every 5 seconds.

That said I am struggling to see a pre-press workflow that would find itself limiting on a 128GB machine. OP probably should run some test, simulate a realistic workflow, and watch closely if like said, the pressure is even close to being pushed.

I used to work in print house, then music related publishing like CD / vinyl artwork design, ever since the 2000's the only one time I hit a hard memory wall was trying to distill / impose a multi-hundred page book on a 16GB Mac. When the machine has 32GB or more it has a lot more headroom to shuffle between compression and swap.

 

[kinga]

If you're eyeing the M4 Max but it's not offering anywhere near 192GB RAM, it’s understandable to hesitate. Even though Apple Silicon is more efficient in memory usage, going from 192GB down to something like 96GB (or less) might seriously bottleneck your workflow.

 

[aUsern@me]

Even though Apple Silicon is more efficient in memory usage, going from 192GB down to something like 96GB (or less) might seriously bottleneck your workflow.

It won't. Or at least it's very unlikely too. Chancha is correct, there's just no way a pre-press workflow needs that much RAM.

Most of the time doing my routine work Activity Monitor show using between 150GB and 180GB

Just because Activity Monitor is showing that it's using 180 GB, out of 192 total, does not mean mean the Mac is running low on RAM or that it needs more. You shouldn't be thinking, "Oh no, I'm using 94% of my available RAM." macOS will rightly use any available Physical Memory that it can.

Now, if you're using 94% of your RAM and Activity Monitor is showing Memory Pressure that's constantly in the yellow or red, that's when you need more memory. But it's doubtful (even with heavy multi-tasking) that Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign and LightRoom needs that kind of memory. A modern Mac would happily and efficiently run that kind of workflow well within 64 GB of RAM.

 

[Toonartist]

It won't. Or at least it's very unlikely too. Chancha is correct, there's just no way a pre-press workflow needs that much RAM.


Just because Activity Monitor is showing that it's using 180 GB, out of 192 total, does not mean mean the Mac is running low on RAM or that it needs more. You shouldn't be thinking, "Oh no, I'm using 94% of my available RAM." macOS will rightly use any available Physical Memory that it can.

Now, if you're using 94% of your RAM and Activity Monitor is showing Memory Pressure that's constantly in the yellow or red, that's when you need more memory. But it's doubtful (even with heavy multi-tasking) that Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign and LightRoom needs that kind of memory. A modern Mac would happily and efficiently run that kind of workflow well within 64 GB of RAM.

I use C1, LR and PS with many, many layers with .psb files in the region of 10-15gb in size, many adobe apps open etc and I used to do this with a 16gb M1. Yes memory pressure was Amber in AM but the M1 MacBook Pro still never really slowed down massively. I've just upgraded and expect the M4 Max 16/40/16 with 64gb of ram will last a long time. So far it shows using more memory than the M1 Pro 16gb (obviously) but no where near the pressure.

In fact, I've been running all the Adobe apps along with an app called PGGB which converts high resolution music to DSD512. Very demanding and it still allowed me to carry on drawing on my Wacom 24 Pro monitor with a second Eizo 27" screen. Without PGGB running, there is a stack of headroom.