PSA: you probably don’t need 32 or 64Gb RAM unless you know you need it.

[ASX]

Do you still keep it? While having M1 Air thinking that i could buy a decent Win Laptop to heat my apartment and have some RAM. M1 Air -> MBP 16 will cost me $1700. I can definitely find good enough win 17" laptop for $1200-$1300.

I'm still thinking about. If I had to pay the full 3849 Euro, i will maybe not keeping it, because the price is absurd for what I’m doing with this machine (media consuming, surfing, office, maybe testing some hdr games ). But I pay only ~2000 Euros if i sell my windows laptop, which i rarely use. For me unique features of this macbook pro are battery life, hdr and noise, but at the costs of compatibility. I would appreciate this laptop with Windows Arm, for wider compatibility, but i think with dual boot 1 TB won’t be enough, even you can’t fully load the ssd with data, it will slow down then .

 

[vel0city]

 

[Rafterman]

I'm still thinking about. If I had to pay the full 3849 Euro, i will maybe not keeping it, because the price is absurd for what I’m doing with this machine (media consuming, surfing, office, maybe testing some hdr games ). But I pay only ~2000 Euros if i sell my windows laptop, which i rarely use. For me unique features of this macbook pro are battery life, hdr and noise, but at the costs of compatibility. I would appreciate this laptop with Windows Arm, for wider compatibility, but i think with dual boot 1 TB won’t be enough, even you can’t fully load the ssd with data, it will slow down then .

Even with Windows ARM, it's iffy. Windows ARM isn't the best comaptibility with many apps. Plus, there's no guarantee that Microsoft will license it outside of their Surface Go's (it's still only avaialble as a "preview")

For some like me, who run Windows apps on VMs, Intel Macbooks are still a thing. While the new M1s are intruging, I will probably keep my 2019 16" Macbook Pro (i9/64GB/8TB) for a while yet.

 

[adamk77]

Very nice share. Enjoyed it.

64GB is (much) harder to justify. I wish the battery life reviews had come in earlier.

Before the battery reviews started rolling in, the only two I was considering were the 32GB Pro and the 64GB Max. My rationale at that time being that there is no point in getting the Max if I was going to get less than 64GB. But I wanted the Max without knowing its battery impact and have pigeon holed myself into it because of the supply constraints.

 

[Phil77354]

I'm not sure how much credit to give this guy, he runs everything without issue on the 32 GB MacBook, then when he runs the same programs on the 64 GB MacBook and notices that over 50 GB of RAM is being used, he makes the statement (at about 4:00) that the programs therefore need that much RAM (and then admits he 'doesn't know how it's doing it', referring to the 32 GB model performing equally well - he 'doesn't notice any difference').

The point being made here in this thread and elsewhere regarding Mac OS use of RAM is that it will take advantage of the RAM that is installed, but concluding that it needs that RAM just because it is using it, is misunderstanding how RAM is managed by the OS.

It is a very fundamental point in these discussions of RAM usage but does not seem to be well understood, even by YouTubers posting videos that claim to offer advice on the subject.

At least that is my understanding from following this discussion.

 

[ASX]

Simple rule is: If it's slowing down, you live with it or pay for more ram. For me i will not get such compromise if i pay so much money.

 

[svenmany]

The point being made here in this thread and elsewhere regarding Mac OS use of RAM is that it will take advantage of the RAM that is installed, but concluding that it needs that RAM just because it is using it, is misunderstanding how RAM is managed by the OS.

Very true. This is not just a Mac thing.

I delivered a system years ago which used Microsoft's SQL Server running on Window's Server. We noticed the machine showed that all RAM was consumed. (I forget the actual measure that was used.) We quickly learned that SQL Server gobbles up all available RAM to improve its own performance. It readily gives it up as other processes or the OS need it.

We really need a definitive article on the current generation of MacOS, written by a software engineer with knowledge of the OS code base. We definitely don't need another opinionator in the mix to mislead us. Anyone who gives an opinion that attempts to sway people should also present their qualifications.

 

[Larabee119]

This video is really helpful if you run heavy files

this is the reason why I get the 64GB version. Opening and work with 16GB photoshop files require 64GB RAM

 

[applesed]

Very nice share. Enjoyed it.

64GB is (much) harder to justify. I wish the battery life reviews had come in earlier.

Before the battery reviews started rolling in, the only two I was considering were the 32GB Pro and the 64GB Max. My rationale at that time being that there is no point in getting the Max if I was going to get less than 64GB. But I wanted the Max without knowing its battery impact and have pigeon holed myself into it because of the supply constraints.

still isn't much data on power usage (and temp) on 32gb pro v. 32gb max with 24gpu v. 32gb max with 32gpu. Under light, moderate, and heavy loads. Although some stuff is out there.

 

[wilberforce]

.

This video is really helpful if you run heavy files

I like his videos, good information. Shows that if you work on large (stitched) ~200Mp photos with masks, more RAM is beneficial.

I did some similar edits with masks on more typical unstitched photos (45Mp RAW, Nikon D850), on a 16GB base 14" MBP, and had no hesitations or beach-balling, despite about 2GB swap usage.

If, however, I converted the file to a super-resolution dng file (180Mp) and then did masking edits, it struggled a bit, and Lightroom took more than 16GB RAM, with about 5GB swap. For masking edits on these sort of file sizes I would recommend 32GB, otherwise 16GB seems to be fine.

btw, I did the same edits on my 32GB 27" 2020 iMac. Interestingly, Lightroom used roughly half the amount of RAM as it did on the 14" MBP, for the exact same edits, and with zero swap. This observation pushes one towards getting more RAM, not less, on the M1 processors, for Lightroom.

The additional RAM usage on the 14" MBP appears to be for the GPU. If I disable the GPU acceleration in Lightroom on the 14" MBP, it uses less than half the RAM, with no swap. But zooming and sliders become a little choppy.

I think if I was to buy this MBP again for a primary computer for photo-editing (which it is not, for me), I would get the base model but with 32GB RAM and 1TB or 2TB SSD.

I should point out that the Lightroom editing experience is far superior on the 27" iMac. I was able to do the edits about twice as fast - not because it processed it faster, but due to the larger screen and trackpad. Much less time wasted panning and zooming. There is no substitute for a 27" 5K screen. This should be the number one priority for anyone serious about photo editing, not RAM. Unfortunately a 5K screen is quite expensive (~$1300) when not bundled in an iMac.
EDIT: As others have pointed out, there are much more affordable 4K monitors available, which would achieve the same objective.

 

[arvinsim]

I bought a maxxed out 14 on release day and it is so much more than I need, but I do not do the CTO thing so it’s base or maxxed. Historically I run large VM’s and the extra horsepower was used, but since the difference now is all about graphics core, the difference is just not there. Takes me back to my trash can where Apple was betting the farm on GPU processing and the apps outside of video and very few others took that plunge. So while I really like having the 2TB andso far Win11 in Parallels has been solid, the 64GB is wasted. I used to throw a bunch of Ram and cores at Windows VMs in Fusion, but Parallels just doesn’t seem to scale as well.

As the cost is not an issue for me as it’s a tool for work, I have overbought for years, but I think this time before my window closes next week I’ll be returning and getting the 10 core base. Even that is not likely to be much better than my M1 but the hardware is so nice and my wife’s 12” is getting overdue.

Yes, if single-core performance is your primary concern, the M1 Pro should be enough.

Heck, the original M1's are also good enough for most people. Personally, what the M1 Pro/Max CPUs offered me that wasn't in the original M1 is the bigger RAM capacity.

 

[arvinsim]

I think if was to buy this MBP again for a primary computer for photo-editing (which it is not, for me), I would get the base model but with 32GB RAM and 1TB or 2TB SSD.

Still don't understand why Apple didn't offer a 32GB/1TB 14" base model.

I should point out that the Lightroom editing experience is far superior on the 27" iMac. I was able to do the edits about twice as fast - not because it processed it faster, but due to the larger screen and trackpad. Much less time wasted panning and zooming. There is no substitute for a 27" 5K screen. This should be the number one priority for anyone serious about photo editing, not RAM. Unfortunately a 5K screen is quite expensive (~$1300) when not bundled in an iMac.

Eh, one can make do with a scaled 27" 4k monitor. We still don't live in a world with affordable 5K monitors.

 

[ctjack]

There is no substitute for a 27" 5K screen. This should be the number one priority for anyone serious about photo editing, not RAM. Unfortunately a 5K screen is quite expensive (~$1300) when not bundled in an iMac.

Right now BestBuy has LG 27" 4K display with 93 DCI-P3, 100% sRGB for $280. I agree, external monitor should be the number one priority for those who need larger screen. You can pair that external monitor with Mac of your choice: mini, Air, 13, 14 MBP.

 

[ASX]

Still don't understand why Apple didn't offer a 32GB/1TB 14" base model.

Me too. Everything below is a joke. I mean also everything below 2 tb ssd. If you want running parallels in the future, you have to share 500 gb or 1 tb with 2 os . For 2200 (M1 Pro 14") - 2500 (M1 Pro 16") or 2750 (M1 Pro 14") - 3850 (M1 Max 16") Euros .

 

[ericwn]

Me too. Everything below is a joke. I mean also everything below 2 tb ssd. If you want running parallels in the future, you have to share 500 gb or 1 tb with 2 os . For 2200 (M1 Pro 14") - 2500 (M1 Pro 16") or 2750 (M1 Pro 14") - 3850 (M1 Max 16") Euros .

You act as if Apple’s pricing strategy would be news to you… they want to maximise their profits from every available configuration.

 

[DB294]

Still don't understand why Apple didn't offer a 32GB/1TB 14" base model.


Eh, one can make do with a scaled 27" 4k monitor. We still don't live in a world with affordable 5K monitors.

I do my serious editing on a 27” QHD monitor. It’s fine. Good Adobe RGB coverage is more important to me than 4-5k. I also use that screen with my windows work laptop and windows is still very bad at scaling to high resolutions, so it saves me some hassle in that regard too.

And yeah, for photography purposes I did M1 Pro with 32GB. I don’t do a lot of stitching or composite work but I also want a laptop that can handle anything I throw at it for five years so I bit the bullet and put down the extra cash.

 

[antst]

Me too. Everything below is a joke. I mean also everything below 2 tb ssd. If you want running parallels in the future, you have to share 500 gb or 1 tb with 2 os . For 2200 (M1 Pro 14") - 2500 (M1 Pro 16") or 2750 (M1 Pro 14") - 3850 (M1 Max 16") Euros .

For majority of users, 500gb is enough, surprisingly. I’ve seen people who after 3 years of using MBP have 250gb free on 500gb drive.
But those are, typically, don’t write on forums and don’t have account here
And while I, personally, can’t imagine life with less that 2Tb (or reasonably fast external/remote disk), I understand that this is rather exception. All my office is full of MBPs with minimal SSDs.

 

[macintoshmac]

After much deliberation, I have decided to buy this 16" display notebook so I can watch Flurry screensaver in all its glory on this XDR display. Hopefully the screensaver looks smokin'.

 

[tlab]

The reality is that for most users, including most posters in this forum (don’t worry, I’m not talking about *you*), a maxed out 2014 or 2015 MBP with 16GB RAM and an SSD would be more than sufficient for their use cases in every sense except maybe battery life

 

[wilberforce]

Me too. Everything below is a joke. I mean also everything below 2 tb ssd. If you want running parallels in the future, you have to share 500 gb or 1 tb with 2 os . For 2200 (M1 Pro 14") - 2500 (M1 Pro 16") or 2750 (M1 Pro 14") - 3850 (M1 Max 16") Euros .

I don’t agree it is a joke. I find the base 16GB model fine for just about everything, including lightroom, except for editing of very large stitched files (and even that works OK, just not ideally.) For a secondary computer I don’t need more and certainly don’t want to spend more. I get the benefit of the great screen in a portable package without having to over-spec the machine. The 1TB option is very affordable for those that want it.
I am just reporting my experiences with lightroom editing for the benefit of others. Lightroom is a bit unusual on this machine as it seems to hog a lot more memory than on other machines, for the gpu. Hope this helps others.

 

[macintoshmac]

The reality is that for most users, including most posters in this forum (don’t worry, I’m not talking about *you*), a maxed out 2014 or 2015 MBP with 16GB RAM and an SSD would be more than sufficient for their use cases in every sense except maybe battery life

I am currently using a measly 2017 MacBook Air! It gets all my jobs done. How much time is another matter, but gets the jobs done. 2014/15 MBPs would certainly be up for a lot.

 

[palmerc]

This is a unified memory architecture. So, what applied to the Intel Macs, which might have had both a discrete and an integrated GPU is not entirely applicable. Performance should be higher for well written apps, but 16GB shared between the CPU and GPU is not necessarily the same as 16GB RAM + Video RAM. Computational performance can definitely be improved by this arrangement, but if that is the case long-term is another question.

Working application memory is still an important consideration, as is the memory consumed by the binary image which these days are quite large. It is true that SSDs have greatly improved performance in-and-of themselves, but RAM quantity and speed is still a consideration. I do not think that binary images are ever going to get smaller. In fact, if software protection becomes popular, we can expect code size to increase and performance to worsen.

So, in my opinion, what constitutes 'a lot of memory' on M1 devices is still an open question and is entirely dependent on the workloads. I would say that for most folks 16 and 32GB are fine, but personally, I'd go with 32GB. More than that is just cost prohibitive.

 

[ericwn]

After much deliberation, I have decided to buy this 16" display notebook so I can watch Flurry screensaver in all its glory on this XDR display. Hopefully the screensaver looks smokin'.

Good choice, Flurry definitely needs 16” or more.

 

[Gabebear]

People are generally not going to regret maxing out RAM. Maxing out RAM increases price roughly 20%...

If you are price sensitive then go with a M1 MacBook Air with 16GB of RAM and it will last a long time. You can even use multiple displays with the correct adapter(annoying that you MUST use DisplayLink, but not a huge deal).

If you can justify spending double the base price then RAM is the first thing you should be maxing out.

 

[macintoshmac]

Good choice, Flurry definitely needs 16” or more.

I know, right? Now thinking about whether 16GB ought to be enough or should I go with 32GB to make sure I can do other things with the computer.