Macbook Pro 16" 2.3 or 2.4 i9 vs 32 or 64 gb RAM for Vide Editing in DaVinci Resolve

[Coolio1286]

Hello everyone,

Been reading Macrumors since forever, but now I finally made an account to post here as well. I am looking to buy a new MBP 16" to do some fairly heavy video editing on the go in DaVinci Resolve (mostly 2.6 and 4k Raw files, with lots of effects, noise reduction etc). Unfortunately I don't have the budget to get a completely maxed out machine, so I am asking whether its more beneficial for me to get the best processor or the maximum amount of ram? Graphics will be maxed out in both cases.

I have had a look at all the benchmarks as well as the tests done by Barefeats and Max Yurvev on Youtube. However I haven't seen this particular comparison anywhere, since most people are only comparing stock configurations and the "ultimate" configuration. Seems like Max in particular is recommending against the 2.4 i9, but then I have also seen people on here claiming real-world gains over the 2.3 i9.

So these are the two BTO configs I am currently looking at:

• 2.4GHz 8‑core 9th‑generation Intel Core i9 processor, Turbo Boost up to 5.0GHz
• 32GB 2666MHz DDR4 memory
• AMD Radeon Pro 5500M with 8GB of GDDR6 memory
• 1TB SSD storage

VS

• 2.3GHz 8‑core 9th‑generation Intel Core i9 processor, Turbo Boost up to 4.8GHz
• 64GB 2666MHz DDR4 memory
• AMD Radeon Pro 5500M with 8GB of GDDR6 memory
• 1TB SSD storage

Looking forward to any advice from people in a similar situation or that have perhaps tested one configuration or both.
Thanks!

 

[bsbeamer]

Maybe can understand the 2.3 vs 2.4 argument/debate if you’re looking to save a few bucks (think “only” $200), but the 32GB vs 64GB in the two configs should be determined. If you’re using the RAM now and often in the 32GB or more range, get 64GB. It’s that simple.

 

[maflynn]

The question is not a 2.3 vs. 2.4 but rather 32GB vs. 64GB. How much ram does your current machine have, and are you seeing that being overly constrained? My uneducated, totally unscientific opinion is that 99% of the MBP buying crowd absolutely don't need 64GB.

People's knee jerk reaction is to always max out what apple provides without any real justification. It was just a few years ago people were rocking with 16GB of ram and technology hasn't shifted that much to justify 64GB imo.

 

[Coolio1286]

Thanks for the responses guys! I am coming from a 2015 13" MBP, but I so far I have done the DaVinci Resolve work on stationary computers at different offices, with both Mac Pros and Windows towers. I now would like to move part of that work on the new 16" MBP to be more mobile..

What I am wondering specifically if DaVinci will benefit from the extra ram of the 64 over the 32?

 

[morze]

I have heard a lot 2.3 vs 2.4 is such a minor difference you won't notice.

In regards to Ram, I was rendering some from UHD/4k to DNxHD185 proxies in DaVinci Resolve on my 32gig Ram 16", the memory app usage hovered around 3gb but the GPU% jumps from about 3% to 100%. So I believe it's more about the GPU with Resolve. Playback is fine with this UHD/4k material.

 

[maflynn]

What I am wondering specifically if DaVinci will benefit from the extra ram of the 64 over the 32?

Here's the recommendation

I would say living within the recommendation is fine, and you may not see any benefit from 64, it will go largely unused

 

[morze]

Here's the recommendation
View attachment 881079

I would say living within the recommendation is fine, and you may not see any benefit from 64, it will go largely unused

Good find. There is also a MacBook Pro recommendation (only say's 16gb RAM). And a section on the GPU:

DaVinci Resolve performs all image processing in the GPU so selection is important based on the clip type, resolution of the clips and timeline, the processes selected within Resolve and of course final render resolution. Even the debayer of Camera RAW media is performed in the GPU so any 4K, 6K or 8K camera RAW files need a large amount of GPU RAM and compute power even if you are using just an HD timeline.

 

[Coolio1286]

Great find indeed @maflynn, however you've linked last years version, DaVinci 15. Can't seem to find a config guide for 16 though, perhaps it has not been released yet?

And @morze thank for the feedback - interesting to have confirmation that the GPU is the bottleneck. However seeing that the GPU could be upgraded down the line via an eGPU but the ram is still soldered, I am still not quite convinced whether to get 32 or 64 gigs..

 

[bsbeamer]

You'll benefit more from an eGPU with Vega64 or even an RX 5700 XT than 32GB vs 64GB, but that's not exactly your question. Adobe eats RAM for breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks in-between. Blackmagic drinks GPU acceleration, even more if you're moving to Fusion (within reason given it's meeting the recommended RAM specs).

Skim through this and some other posts on the Blackmagic forum:
https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=80235

Will note for the future - there is little to no benefit achieved with the current "cheap" Blackmagic eGPU with MBP16. That is based on RX 580 (older than what is built into the MBP16) and all testing reports so far show scores/acceleration in the 10% range at most, with the dGPU being utilized most often with those setups. You're better off with an actual eGPU "housing" and adding your own GPU (so it's also upgradeable over time).

 

[Coolio1286]

@bsbeamer thanks for the link! Yes no eGPU planned for the moment, but that's something that I could certainly see in one or two years down-the-line to keep this machine working. I think that's where the 64 GB would potentially come in useful then, however the GPU would still likely be the bottleneck then, even with an external solution, right?

 

[morze]

Maybe you would like to take the cash rather than the larger ram upgrade and put it towards the eGPU you want down the line? If it works well today I'm sure it'll be fine for years to come.

Personally, once a system works I generally don't upgrade the software. I worked on a show for 4 years and we didn't change anything. It was rock solid and as fast as they were on day one.

Another option would be to order both, test them and return the one you don't want, Apple have that extended holiday return period.

 

[bsbeamer]

@bsbeamer thanks for the link! Yes no eGPU planned for the moment, but that's something that I could certainly see in one or two years down-the-line to keep this machine working. I think that's where the 64 GB would potentially come in useful then, however the GPU would still likely be the bottleneck then, even with an external solution, right?

Not necessarily. As more apps embrace METAL, the GPU performance will continue to improve. Multiple GPU setups will/should be able to continue to accelerate. Adobe has embraced multiple GPUs via eGPU with their latest releases and it makes a big difference for parts of workflow that CAN be accelerated. A lot depends on a lot of scenarios is the easiest explanation for this thread.

With the 5500M 8GB in MBP16, you basically should have an equivalent or higher in an eGPU to actually improve/accelerate anything. Vega56 is sort of there on paper (I'd have argument with improved drivers for 5XXX series it is not), but from the initial benchmarks it's not really pulling it's weight vs dDPU. RX 580 barely does anything when used with MBP16's dGPU. Vega64 or RX 5700/RX 5700 XT are what most are testing right now. Initial signs show some massive acceleration on parts of workflow. That is a benefit you can tap into now.