Mac Mini or Mac Studio as a photographer

[scarlac]

Hi, I'm a photographer and I am in need for a new Mac.
I would like to have your opinion before I choose my next model, I have doubts about the range of some models, don't know what to choose.
Apple has the art to lead you from one model to the next one, always by adding or not adding options on certain models.

I use following software the most:
- Lightroom
- Photoshop
- Topaz Photo AI
- Indesign
- sometimes Illustrator, After Effects, Premiere Pro, Media Encoder
- Apple music (app), is always open, I mention this because this app uses a lot of memory

Here is my current setup:
- Macbook Pro 2019, intel core i9, 32GB RAM, 4TB SSD
- connected to a Studio display.
It's still a fast and very good computer, only the 32GB RAM is not enough.
Especially when I use Photo AI, for more than 10 images in batch, wowww it can take about an hour for denoising and sharpening a batch of 10-15 photos)
I also see when I'm using Lightroom for a long time, my mac starts to slow down.
Photoshop with more than 5-6 layers starts to struggle too (when LR is open too).
As you can imagine, my workflow is under pressure, when more than 1 app is open, which is always the case as a photographer.

I have to be careful about my budget. I can't Afford a macbook pro M3 boosted with 64Gb and 4TB SSD. I configured on the apple site what I would need and I get a price around the 6500€.

I tried out several Mac Mini models and Mac Studio models.
Very soon both models will bring their M3 versions on the market. (I hope so)

The 2 options I'm considering are:
- Mac mini M3 pro, 32 GB RAM, 1 TB SD, external NVMe 4TB SSD
- Mac Studio M3 max, 64 GB RAM, 1 TB SD, external NVMe 4TB SSD
Till now, the mac mini doesn't offer 64GB RAM, the studio does.
This is what I mean, apple won't add the option to the mac mini, so it leads you to a more expensive model.

Here is my main question. Knowing that I can't compare how RAM works on 'Intel based chips' and the more recent 'Silicon M chips'.
I saw several youtube videos explaining that it doesn't work the same way.
Would a mac mini with 32GB RAM be enough for my type of workflow, or is it recommended to go to a mac studio with 64GB RAM.
Also knowing that in the first 5-6 years, I won't look for a new model.

Thanks in advance for reading this and for you opinion.
Have a great day.

Alec

 

[Basic75]

If 32GB are already not enough on your Intel MacBook Pro I would absolutely recommend you get your new Mac with 64GB.

 

[Mousse]

I'm assuming you'll work with 8-50MP images on a regular basis. Moar, MOAR, *MOAR* RAM is a no brainer.😄 PS + 50MP image + layers* + moar layers = as much RAM as you can get your meat hooks on.🧐

I'd get the Studio. I did get the Studio.🤗

*No photographer I know ever uses destructive editing.

 

[jedimasterkyle]

Honestly, I'd go with the Mac Studio, 64GB of RAM and the M3 MAX. With the types of apps you use and the file sizes you work with, I'd future proof your Mac as much as you can. That configuration will be more than enough computing horsepower to get the job done AND you wont have to upgrade for a good long while.

 

[jz0309]

PS is a RAM hog, I use it and LRC as a hobby photographer on a Studio with 64GB, wouldn’t do less on a new computer…

 

[coffeemilktea]

Knowing that I can't compare how RAM works on 'Intel based chips' and the more recent 'Silicon M chips'.
I saw several youtube videos explaining that it doesn't work the same way.

Yeah, since there's no discrete graphics card, the integrated GPU on the Apple Silicon chip takes some of your regular system RAM and uses it as VRAM... in short, you now have even less actual RAM available for everything else, regardless of how much Apple insists that their new hardware is better at handling memory.

You should get the Mac Studio with 64+ GB, especially if you plan to use it for another 5-6 years.

 

[theluggage]

Here is my main question. Knowing that I can't compare how RAM works on 'Intel based chips' and the more recent 'Silicon M chips'.
I saw several youtube videos explaining that it doesn't work the same way.

Take such videos with a large pinch of salt.

Yes, there are differences in the way RAM works on Apple Silicon - but nothing that can magically turn 32GB into 64GB. Apple Silicon may be better than Intel in dealing with low-RAM situations but running short of RAM still means that the CPU is being slowed down c.f. its full potential.

What it is worth doing before taking the jump is, on your existing system, opening Activity Monitor and looking at the Memory Pressure reading (not Memory Used - which isn't very useful because Mac OS will use "spare" memory for extra caches and suchlike) and see if that is getting high when you're running your demanding jobs. Given what you are doing it is quite likely that you are running out of RAM - but that isn't always the cause of slowdowns.

Another thing to consider is that - thanks to Apple's prices - you are paying a whopping premium for that 4TB SSD. You could attach a fast, external 4GB SSD to a Mac Studio for a fraction of what Apple wants, and although it wouldn't be as fast as Apple's it is still pretty fast, and much of the speed benefit comes from having the system, application files, temporary files, swap etc. - and maybe your current 'work in progress' on the fast internal SSD. Personally, I don't think having more than, say, 1TB as the main drive on a desktop machine is worth the money unless you're doing high-def video or "big data" that involves multi-gigabyte files. Obviously, with a laptop, there's a difference because you don't want an external drive dangling off it everywhere you go - but it's no hardship on a desktop (and something like a Studio or Mini Pro is well endowed with I/O ports.

NB: When the M3 Max Studio comes out, be prepared for the price to go up. The M3 Max is a bigger jump in power from the M3 Pro than was the case with the M2 line, and with the M3 Max MBP, Apple have added a couple of hundred bucks for the privilege.

 

[picpicmac]

Till now, the mac mini doesn't offer 64GB RAM, the studio does.

The M2/M3 SoCs only have two SDRAMs. The Max chips have three or four, and thus can have higher RAM specs.

Apple has already shown with the MacBook Pro that the M3 Pro can be configured up to 36GB of RAM. Since the Mac Mini (so far) uses the same SoCs as the MBA and MBP I do not expect the next Mini to go beyond 36GB in the M3 Pro version.

I'm waiting for one.... Real Soon Now.

So your requirement for more RAM is going to have to be done with the Mac Studio.

ArtIsRight has tested all the Mac machines and put up many videos. Here's the summary video:

 

[chrfr]

The 2 options I'm considering are:
- Mac mini M3 pro, 32 GB RAM, 1 TB SD, external NVMe 4TB SSD
- Mac Studio M3 max, 64 GB RAM, 1 TB SD, external NVMe 4TB SSD

You probably know this, but neither of these computers currently exist. I assume you're willing to wait but both the Mini and the Studio are still stuck in the M2 generation.

 

[scarlac]

Hi

Thank you so much for all the replies, it helps me a lot.
I think the choice is simple now. It's going to be a Mac Studio, when it comes out with the M3 processor.
Soon enough I hope.

64GB at least will be the best option too, maybe 96Gb, just to cover me up for the future 5-6 years.
OS and apps tend to get bigger and ask more RAM in the upcoming years.
For the SSD, I think I'll be taking the 1TB option and a fast enclosure + fast 4TB SSD.
The prices that apple asks for their SSDs are absurdly high.
I assume that 512GB intern SSD will be short, I would prefer to leave more space for scratch disks and so on.
The internal SSD will be used for the system and apps, the rest of the data will be placed on the external SSD.
Doing it this way, will be a good choice for the upcoming years, without blocking myself with a system with specs that are low.

Thanks again for all the input and I wish to all a great day.
Alec

 

[leifp]

Minor FYI: the M3 Pro Mac mini is likely to have 36GB RAM available.
Major FYI: buy what you can afford but know that with your use case the computer will fail on CPU/GPU capabilities long before you’ve run out of RAM if you get 96GB.

Photo software requires GPU. Keeping all apps running at all times requires RAM. Inefficient coding makes RAM loads heavier than needed but the software you’re using is pretty decent.

edit: not sure how I missed the Art is Right video linked above (in fact picpicmacs post entirely) but he’s pretty solid on his recommendations for photographers

 

[hobowankenobi]

FWIW: Art department that I support runs about 50 M1 iMacs with 16GB of RAM, running nearly everything you do...with zero RAM issues. No Topaz, but some machines are for tethered shooting using CaptureOne, and again, no RAM issues.

It may be that larger data sets/catalogs could cause issues, but for day-to-day functionality, editing, and printing in a photo heavy area, 16GB has been adequate. More would never hurt. Based on the fact that they are 1st gen M1 iMacs, M3 anything and more than 16GB should be very good overall.

 

[bradman83]

Apple Silicon is not magically more efficient with RAM than Mac Intel counterparts are, this has been debunked in plenty of testing. (Both Apple Silicon and Intel use shared video memory when the discrete GPU isn't in use). The SSDs on modern Macs are simply so fast that using memory swap doesn't incur the performance hit that it used to.

Maybe consider a clearance Studio with M2 Max/64 GB when the M3 models come out later this year if budget is a concern. You'll be happy in the long run as Lightroom, Photoshop, Topaz and similar apps all use the NPU to great advantage over Intel chips.

 

[G5isAlive]

FWIW: Art department that I support runs about 50 M1 iMacs with 16GB of RAM, running nearly everything you do...with zero RAM issues. No Topaz, but some machines are for tethered shooting using CaptureOne, and again, no RAM issues.

It may be that larger data sets/catalogs could cause issues, but for day-to-day functionality, editing, and printing in a photo heavy area, 16GB has been adequate. More would never hurt. Based on the fact that they are 1st gen M1 iMacs, M3 anything and more than 16GB should be very good overall.

This. A lot of people chase specs and will give advice without hands on experience. I maintain three separate offices over 300 miles because I like a change in scenery every now and then. My cabin in Maine, I have a M3 Max MBP 16 with 32 gb ram 1 Tb SSD, my official office a M2 Ultra Studio with 64 gb ram 4 tb SD and my home office is a M2 MBA with 16 gb ram.

Would a mac mini with 32GB RAM be enough for my type of workflow, or is it recommended to go to a mac studio with 64GB RAM.

OP didn't say, but I shoot with a Sony A7 RV that produces 61 mp files, which uncompressed raw averages around 129 mb. That's larger file sizes than most cameras. I use photoshop and Lightroom with my library on an external 4tb Crucial X9. I move from machine to machine with that library and work on 100's of raw files at a time.

I don't sit there with a stop watch or audio meter, but the work flow works easily on all three machines. I try to convince myself the MBA is slower because you know, the lower specs, the lower cost, but I really can not tell the difference between Mac Studio (64 gb ram) and MBP (32 gb ram). I am productive on all three, and most of my time is spent thinking about what I want to do with the images, not waiting for the computer. I do miss the second monitor on my MBA.

So buy what you can afford, sure why not? But don't believe you have to have 64 gb ram. I do like the ports and form factor of the Mac Studio over a mini, but I have no doubt the mini can handle your work flow as described.

 

[Alameda]

I edit a lot of photos as well, using a 45 mp Canon. It was a big workload increase from the 30mp camera. I bought a MacBook Pro with the M2, 16 GB RAM and 500 GB SSD. I have to move images to an external Thunderbolt SSD drive and then backup to my NAS.

I use DxO PhotoLab 6 and Adobe Photoshop and I don’t run into problems. I often quit one app before running the next, since it takes only about ten seconds to launch an app. I don’t go up to five layers in Photoshop, but I don’t see how a 45mp layer will consume even 100MB RAM, not GB’s of RAM.

I know there are people who run 3 browsers with 200 tabs and 18 other applications continually, but they’re probably addicted to adderall and have the attention span of a flea. It doesn’t take genius to use up all of a system’s RAM, but if you limit the number of apps you concurrently run and stay focused on one task at a time, I don’t see the need for massive amounts of RAM.

I once had to write Linux software, and booting up Linux took up half my RAM, so yes, virtual machines are perhaps a different story, but you aren’t doing that.

 

[Basic75]

I don’t see how a 45mp layer will consume even 100MB RAM

After demosaic a 45MP photo will use 32bits per pixel and consume nearly 180MB of RAM if you use only 8bits per channel. If you edit in 16bits per channel, which is probably a good idea since you don't want to throw away information from your camera, you can double that to 360MB.

 

[dpCM]

Hi

Thank you so much for all the replies, it helps me a lot.
I think the choice is simple now. It's going to be a Mac Studio, when it comes out with the M3 processor.
Soon enough I hope.

64GB at least will be the best option too, maybe 96Gb, just to cover me up for the future 5-6 years.
OS and apps tend to get bigger and ask more RAM in the upcoming years.
For the SSD, I think I'll be taking the 1TB option and a fast enclosure + fast 4TB SSD.
The prices that apple asks for their SSDs are absurdly high.
I assume that 512GB intern SSD will be short, I would prefer to leave more space for scratch disks and so on.
The internal SSD will be used for the system and apps, the rest of the data will be placed on the external SSD.
Doing it this way, will be a good choice for the upcoming years, without blocking myself with a system with specs that are low.

Thanks again for all the input and I wish to all a great day.
Alec

I'll offer my 2 cents as I have an extensive experience with Topaz Labs software as well as Photoshop and Affinity Photo.

Personally, I could not get away with 72GB on Intel Mac nor 64GB on Windows 11 for my use case with Topaz software suite which is pretty extreme I'll admit. Most of my files hover around a GB each and easily triple that when working in 16-bit. Once I upgraded both to 128GB I have never had any problems.

Aside from RAM, Topaz software (on x64 architecture) relies heavily on GPU. If you're not running out of RAM using Topaz Photo AI (I'm sure your swap is high) then what is slowing you down (aside from using laptop) is the weak GPU so, in the interim, you could speed it up significantly by using eGPU with 6900xt (or 6800xt) if you can find it relatively cheaply on the used market. You could probably get away with even lesser macOS compatible 6xxx card just make sure to compare the specs to your internal dGPU - you do want something significantly faster than what you have. VRAM is not an issue with anything 8GB and above. In Gigapixel, Sharpen, DeNoise and Video AI you can use All GPUs option in Preferences which works the best and speeds up workflow enormously - it's basically using all available GPUs simultaneously for computing. I don't know if Photo AI has that option as it is my least favorite out of all of them and I do not use it nor have it installed on Mac.

I don't know how Topaz software works on AS but from what I've seen on DPReview forums it is still a RAM hog and I've read comments where people were complaining that 64GB RAM was not enough to run it smoothly. One more thing I've noticed is that Topaz software does not release RAM once it is done processing files so always quit the programs if they're not in use and open in the background.

Now, to go back to your original question I would not consider anything less than 96GB RAM and would strongly encourage you to go for 128GB for any future AS Mac. Especially since you are obviously multitasking and using different RAM demanding software at the same time.

As far as SSD is concerned 1TB is the minimum although I would suggest 2TB. The only time I've seen Affinity Photo and Photoshop slow down was when I was low on internal drive space as they use huge amounts of scratch disk space in addition to RAM. I have also noticed that anything less than 20% of free internal SSD space drastically reduces the internal SSD speed on Mac.

For external SSD I would suggest buying Acasis Thunderbolt enclosure and putting a NVMe SSD in it. Gen 3 should be plenty fast for you. I would personally stay from QLC drives unless it's for back up at which point I would suggest SATA SSD in an USB enclosure.

Hope this helps.

Cheers.

 

[Alameda]

After demosaic a 45MP photo will use 32bits per pixel and consume nearly 180MB of RAM if you use only 8bits per channel. If you edit in 16bits per channel, which is probably a good idea since you don't want to throw away information from your camera, you can double that to 360MB.

Which is nothing. Ten times that is 3.6 GB… so why all the expense of 32, 64 or 96 GB?

I’ll happily admit to being wrong if I am… I just haven’t seen the evidence for why so much RAM is needed for photography. Maybe if he upsamples his images to 200 megapixels in Topaz and then edits multiple layers for output to a 40x60 printer? It’s possible; I haven’t done that. I just know that in my use, the 16 GB has been enough and even if I used Photoshop continually, I could give it 16 GB and the remaining 8 or 16 should be more than enough in a 24/32 GB system.

 

[Alameda]

I'll offer my 2 cents as I have an extensive experience with Topaz Labs software as well as Photoshop and Affinity Photo.

Personally, I could not get away with 72GB on Intel Mac nor 64GB on Windows 11 for my use case with Topaz software suite which is pretty extreme I'll admit. Most of my files hover around a GB each and easily triple that when working in 16-bit. Once I upgraded both to 128GB I have never had any problems.

Aside from RAM, Topaz software (on x64 architecture) relies heavily on GPU. If you're not running out of RAM using Topaz Photo AI (I'm sure your swap is high) then what is slowing you down (aside from using laptop) is the weak GPU so, in the interim, you could speed it up significantly by using eGPU with 6900xt (or 6800xt) if you can find it relatively cheaply on the used market. You could probably get away with even lesser macOS compatible 6xxx card just make sure to compare the specs to your internal dGPU - you do want something significantly faster than what you have. VRAM is not an issue with anything 8GB and above. In Gigapixel, Sharpen, DeNoise and Video AI you can use All GPUs option in Preferences which works the best and speeds up workflow enormously - it's basically using all available GPUs simultaneously for computing. I don't know if Photo AI has that option as it is my least favorite out of all of them and I do not use it nor have it installed on Mac.

I don't know how Topaz software works on AS but from what I've seen on DPReview forums it is still a RAM hog and I've read comments where people were complaining that 64GB RAM was not enough to run it smoothly. One more thing I've noticed is that Topaz software does not release RAM once it is done processing files so always quit the programs if they're not in use and open in the background.

Now, to go back to your original question I would not consider anything less than 96GB RAM and would strongly encourage you to go for 128GB for any future AS Mac. Especially since you are obviously multitasking and using different RAM demanding software at the same time.

As far as SSD is concerned 1TB is the minimum although I would suggest 2TB. The only time I've seen Affinity Photo and Photoshop slow down was when I was low on internal drive space as they use huge amounts of scratch disk space in addition to RAM. I have also noticed that anything less than 20% of free internal SSD space drastically reduces the internal SSD speed on Mac.

For external SSD I would suggest buying Acasis Thunderbolt enclosure and putting a NVMe SSD in it. Gen 3 should be plenty fast for you. I would personally stay from QLC drives unless it's for back up at which point I would suggest SATA SSD in an USB enclosure.

Hope this helps.

Cheers.

What is your extreme use? What do you do which turns your 30 - 60 MB RAW photos into 1 GB files? I don’t use Topaz, I bought it but I prefer DxO. I believe you; I don’t know everything so I’m truly curious what sort of editing will need these resources, since my work doesn’t come close.

 

[theluggage]

64GB at least will be the best option too, maybe 96Gb, just to cover me up for the future 5-6 years.

To re-iterate - I'm not going to second-guess how much RAM you need for your photography work, but its worth doing the memory pressure test on your current machine to check that it really is your 32GB RAM slowing things down, since more than 32GB really does add to the price and constrains your CPU choices.

We don't know what the base price of the M3 Mac Studio will be, but it's a fair guess that the base specification and build-to-order options and prices will be similar to the M3 Max MacBook Pro. It's worth playing around with configs on the Apple store because the RAM options and upgrade prices dance around depending on whether you choose the 14/30 or or 16/40 core processors.

In terms of "future proofing" - that's really a lottery as you can't predict the future - you don't know what new technologies will appear or how your workload will change. You can hope for 5-6 years (and if you bought a system in the mid/early 10s you might have been lucky) but I'd plan for 3-4 years and treat anything past that as a bonus. One thing I find helpful is to work out the cost-per-year over the kit's estimated useful life, then try and guess how many extra years each upgrade would buy you, and how that changes the annual cost. Still guesswork, of course.

A major factor in the last decade or so was the arrival of affordable SSDs - which could be easily retro-fitted to early-2010s systems, and really did make a night-and-day difference that gave them extra years of life - there's no guarantee that history will repeat itself, and current Macs are less upgradeable (this may not be a coincidence!)

For the SSD, I think I'll be taking the 1TB option and a fast enclosure + fast 4TB SSD.
The prices that apple asks for their SSDs are absurdly high.
I assume that 512GB intern SSD will be short, I would prefer to leave more space for scratch disks and so on.

Again, looking the M3 Mac Pro, they've dropped the 512GB SSD option on the Max version, so it is possible that the M3 Studio will start at 1TB too. Of course, its also possible/likely that the base price will go up, too...

512GB for system/apps/temp + most of your actual data on external would probably be adequate if that's budget-critical, but 1TB really is a more sensible size. You never want to fill a SSD to capacity. I wouldn't pay Apple prices for more than 1TB unless you have a particular need for everything on one huge drive.

 

[dpCM]

What is your extreme use? What do you do which turns your 30 - 60 MB RAW photos into 1 GB files? I don’t use Topaz, I bought it but I prefer DxO. I believe you; I don’t know everything so I’m truly curious what sort of editing will need these resources, since my work doesn’t come close.

I'm not a photographer. I work with digital art using a lot of upscaling to get to an optimal large format print resolution.

Working files at 16-bit get enormous. Like I said, it's an extreme case. Topaz software is an absolute RAM hog the more you push the resolution. Sharpen AI is especially taxing on both CPU and GPU and heavy on RAM.

If I had a 2019 i9 32GB 4TB MBP (which is no slouch even now) that was struggling, I would at least triple the RAM on my next Mac considering the money we are talking about here with no upgrade path expected for the next 5 to 6 years. RAM up, SSD down. Just my opinion as I do not buy this whole AS needs less RAM than x64 architecture narrative.

In general, I think an easily upgradable (RAM/GPU and even CPU) desktop PC running W11 Pro would make more sense here cost wise considering that OP's MBP is still capable and he owns a Studio Display. Divide tasks between the two machines, incrementally upgrade the PC as needed and save money. All of the software used is already available for both platforms.

 

[Alameda]

I'm not a photographer. I work with digital art using a lot of upscaling to get to an optimal large format print resolution.

Working files at 16-bit get enormous. Like I said, it's an extreme case. Topaz software is an absolute RAM hog the more you push the resolution. Sharpen AI is especially taxing on both CPU and GPU and heavy on RAM.

If I had a 2019 i9 32GB 4TB MBP (which is no slouch even now) that was struggling, I would at least triple the RAM on my next Mac considering the money we are talking about here with no upgrade path expected for the next 5 to 6 years. RAM up, SSD down. Just my opinion as I do not buy this whole AS needs less RAM than x64 architecture narrative.

In general, I think an easily upgradable (RAM/GPU and even CPU) desktop PC running W11 Pro would make more sense here cost wise considering that OP's MBP is still capable and he owns a Studio Display. Divide tasks between the two machines, incrementally upgrade the PC as needed and save money. All of the software used is already available for both platforms.

How large are the prints?
Please understand, I am not trying to doubt or criticize you at all; I want to understand this better.

I shoot with a 45 megapixel camera. That’s 8192 horizontal pixels and 5464 vertical pixels. If I want to print at 300 dpi, I think that my maximum image size is 27 x 18 inches… which isn’t all that large. I can see how if you’re printing 20 foot long banners at 300 dpi, file sizes can increase 10x.

So you upscale with Topaz to something huge and you edit 5-layer 16-bit images at that huge resolution, and that’s why your RAM use shoots so high? Is that the general scale of the problem?

Thank you for sharing this info. It’s very informative.

 

[ewitte]

Apple Silicon is not magically more efficient with RAM than Mac Intel counterparts are, this has been debunked in plenty of testing. (Both Apple Silicon and Intel use shared video memory when the discrete GPU isn't in use). The SSDs on modern Macs are simply so fast that using memory swap doesn't incur the performance hit that it used to.

Maybe consider a clearance Studio with M2 Max/64 GB when the M3 models come out later this year if budget is a concern. You'll be happy in the long run as Lightroom, Photoshop, Topaz and similar apps all use the NPU to great advantage over Intel chips.

What they are insinuating highly depends on what you are doing. If you are opening a ton of applications and only using one at a time, sure the architecture will help a lot with that. If you are opening ONE app that needs a bunch of RAM and utilizes the GPU you could be worse off.

 

[Basic75]

If you are opening a ton of applications and only using one at a time, sure the architecture will help a lot with that.

How does the CPU architecture help with that? Or, if you are not referring to CPU architecture, which one are you referring to?

 

[ewitte]

How does the CPU architecture help with that? Or, if you are not referring to CPU architecture, which one are you referring to?

The unified memory design and how it actively parks things you are not actively working on and pulls it back up from SSD when you jump back in. That works well with a bunch of small apps, but not one or two huge ones.