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

[antst]

How far have you stress tested Photoshop on the 16GB? Interested in limits. If you added another 20 smart object layers with smart blur effects, and another 10 adjustment layers to the 30 layer file you mentioned, would at that point trying to paint with a complicated 1500px brush cause brush lag? Could you have Indesign and Illustrator files open in background while doing all that? Another 1-2 Photoshop files of same size? Nobody is doing those kinds of reviews. As if everybody only does video editing, browsing and exporting

On Mac mini M1 with 16gb, every second day macOS shows “not enough memory, please kill something” to me )))
And I don’t even have photoshop )))
And no VMs. And nothing which can be qualified “huge project”
I have to give it to M1, though, my old intel mbp with 16gb is absolute unusable in those conditions, and M1 still is.

 

[shenfrey]

I've been telling people ever since, but some are either too stubborn, suffer of serious FOMO or don't give a damn about cash. All fine, but I've seen the craziest recommendations and false information here in the last few days. From needing 32GB-64GB for web browsing and some basic photo/video editing, to telling people to get 32GB because it replaced 16GB in being the "new standard".

Usually I'd advise people to look at their memory pressure, but with the crazy fast RAM and SSD's you won't even notice swapping anymore nowadays.

Anyway, buy as you want, but stop spreading false information.

When the mac pro launches with a hypothetical 64GB base model, watch as that quickly becomes the 'new standard' on here.

 

[patrick.a]

I'm looking to order 16" MBP M1 Pro, 1TB and can't decide on 16 vs 32gb of ram.
I use Photoshop, Illustrator, sometimes Premiere Pro (4K edit max), and I will start learning Blender 3D soon.
What would you recommend?

That really depends on the complexity of your files and your specific workflow. I guess you could get away with 16GB for PS and Illustrator if your files are not huge and you don't want them all to be open at the same time. I don't have experience with Blender, but for my work in Cinema 4D I'd go with at least 32GB of ram. But again, that really depends on how complex your 3D models are going to be. If you are a beginner and you can afford the headroom, I'd go with 32GB in your case.

 

[shenfrey]

That really depends on the complexity of your files and your specific workflow. I guess you could get away with 16GB for PS and Illustrator if your files are not huge and you don't want them all to be open at the same time. I don't have experience with Blender, but for my work in Cinema 4D I'd go with at least 32GB of ram. But again, that really depends on how complex your 3D models are going to be. If you are a beginner and you can afford the headroom, I'd go with 32GB in your case.

What kind of depresses me a little, everyone said I made the wrong decision picking up an 8GB M1 MBP last year, now this year I picked up a 16GB MBP and I still made the wrong decision. I can't win.

 

[macdsn]

I honestly don’t know. Do you usually use 1500px brushes? I mean, 1500px brushes can lag even on my Ryzen 32Gb PC, and I don’t think it’s RAM, it’s more likely due to cpu and gpu. I think you will hit a cpu or gpu bottleneck before you hit a RAM bottleneck with these kinds of brush sizes.

As for smart layers, that depends on the document sizes within the smart layers.

ok then have you tried 1000px brushes along with a certain number of various types of layers? Youre right about the smart layer size. Not sure how to properly test that. Maybe duplicating picture same size as document and turning into smart object then applying 1 effect, then duplicating that layer more and more. That Youtuber Artisright showed that a 196mp Lightroom file had brush lag on 16GB but not on 32GB, so memory does affect it. He didn't show if there was lag on 140mp file so we don't know the limits.

If you or anyone else with base M1 Pro can do a Photoshop stress test then PS users would finally know what RAM size they need. Results won't be 100% precise because it depends on a lot of factors but at least people could get a general idea of what is possible. It's not enough to see how many files you can have open but if you can actually work with them without lag.

 

[macdsn]

On Mac mini M1 with 16gb, every second day macOS shows “not enough memory, please kill something” to me )))
And I don’t even have photoshop )))
And no VMs. And nothing which can be qualified “huge project”
I have to give it to M1, though, my old intel mbp with 16gb is absolute unusable in those conditions, and M1 still is.

What program do you use? Lightroom with GPU acceleration enabled eats too much RAM according to some users.

 

[aevan]

Here is where I disagree with you. Switching between inactive apps can be perceived to be smooth independently of the amount of ram.
And basically is what these YouTubers are proving: a 16gb machine is able to keep open and switch between an astonishing number of complex applications.

My point is that, other than switching between them one should also interact and use them to really prove that no more ram is needed.
And while you are right explaining that big files (e.g. very complex PSD's) need more ram to basically be opened without having to pay a big performance hit for the Virtual Memory usage, You should also take in account that summing multiple instances of less memory hungry application can make the system into the same loading condition as the big files case.
Because Virtual Memory always comes at performance prices, even on these ultra fast SSDs, and the more you need to store memory pages inside the more it will hit on performance.

Also, I understand that target of your advice are normal people who really will not benefit from more ram.
(A casual user can just close one or two application if occasionally notice slowness, or can simply reboot the machine to regain its speed)
But you should be fair to non try to convince that no one needs more ram, or only 1-2% needs, because these are professional grade machine, and productivity is a concern.

I think I repeated mutliple times that I never said “no one needs more RAM”. A LOT of people need more RAM. Just not people who “open a bunch of browser tabs” I can also say most 2D and 3D illustrators don’t need more.

Having 32 or 64Gb RAM is not a new or recent thing, this option existed for a whole - so if you need more, you know you need more and you’re most likely upgrading from a machine that already has more.

 

[ASX]

Why do you say they don't need, if 32 gb runs much faster with a lot tabs open? 16 gb ram is something for entry level laptops, but nothing for a 2200 - 3000 Euro laptop. There is no room for compromises while doing normal stuff like web browsing.

 

[aevan]

Why do you say they don't need, if 32 gb runs much faster with a lot tabs open?

Because 32 doesn’t run much faster with a lot of tabs open. Both run fast.

This is the last time I reply to you, so I’ll write it all. You prefer PCs. That would be fine on its own, but the ridiculous amount of complaints and posts you made across multiple threads is very indicative: this computer has really scrambled your loyalties and now you’re using this forum as a sort of therapeutical way to cope with the fact that Apple makes the best laptop for a lot of people now. Certainly not everyone - of course - but for a lot. No one makes so many posts about the computer they returned - especially if they are so happy with that choice.

And the mental gymnastics - wow. You mention old Intel 14nm chips and how that’s the reason Apple switched. First of all - no, it wasn’t, they started working on the switch long before that, when they realized they can make a better chip for the Mac and Mac users. Second, I worked on a Zen 2 Threadripper, that’s a 7nm chip. It’s a beast. And yes, PCIe 4.0 SSD. 128Gb RAM. I know what a fast PC is. It’s very fast - and beats almost anything out there for rendering, 3D production, etc. And still, that little M1 Air felt more responsive in general work. You know - stuff like your “lots of tabs”. So don’t come to me with “you don’t know better” - because I certainly do.

And you know what? The scary part (for you) is that this is just M1 - M one. Remember when Apple first took a massive cpu leap and took the industry by storm elsewhere? That was the 64bit A7. How much faster was every subsequent cpu since then? Think about that - and then think about what will be when M2 Pros come out. What about M3 Pros? What are the latest rumors? 40 cores? 3nm?

Even if Apple was “just competitive” to Intel, it would still be impressive, considering this is their first laptop/desktop CPU. The fact they are destroying them in performance per watt (and that’s not just important for battery life, by the way) - with their first chip is really unbelievable. I actually hope both Intel and AMD catch up, competition is good. But currently, this was a big shift. And it’s fine - most PC users still work on their great computers and not care. Not all of them, though, some vent about it on a Mac forum for days, apparently.

 

[patrick.a]

What kind of depresses me a little, everyone said I made the wrong decision picking up an 8GB M1 MBP last year, now this year I picked up a 16GB MBP and I still made the wrong decision. I can't win.

Doesn't matter what other people say. If it works for you, it's fine! As said already, it really depends on your personal workflow.

 

[ASX]

@aevan

I have seen it with my own eyes, you dont with your 16 gb base model . The mbp is not the best. It has too many downsides. Especially the display is unbearable.

ZEN 2 is old tech. Many cores doesn't mean it's fast, many apps using only a few cores. Performance for desktop apps is related to the architecture, especially the ipc and clock speed. Which is on your threadripper pretty low.

Apple is not competetive to Intel when they are only filling a small niche for native mx apps. If they cant fix the other problems with the mbp, they will never be an alternative for enthusiasts which are mostly willing to pay the very high prices.

 

[aevan]

What kind of depresses me a little, everyone said I made the wrong decision picking up an 8GB M1 MBP last year, now this year I picked up a 16GB MBP and I still made the wrong decision. I can't win.

Don’t get depressed by anything your read on forums. People have different needs, biases, perceptions - and they can be just plain wrong. The only person who knows what you need and what works for you - is you. Just use your computer. I think you’ll be more than happy.

 

[iYigit]

Just got my 13 inch MacBook Pro M1 16 GB RAM & 512 GB SSD and it's already super amazing. Tried to activate the fans by running hard programs same time but I couldn't even heat up the MacBook Pro lol. Like it's in sleep mode (as cold as Antarctica). I believe and I'm sure 32 GB RAM will be useless for %95 of MacBook users.

 

[patrick.a]

Just got my 13 inch MacBook Pro M1 16 GB RAM & 512 GB SSD and it's already super amazing. Tried to activate the fans by running hard programs same time but I couldn't even heat up the MacBook Pro lol. Like it's in sleep mode (as cold as Antarctica). I believe and I'm sure 32 GB RAM will be useless for %95 of MacBook users.

Ram has (almost) nothing to do with the heat a laptop produces. Also, it's not about opening several programs at the same time. I't about working with huge files simultaneously. If you don't do this, 16GB is more than enough. But it's also worth noting that a MacBook Air could handle these workloads just as fine for a lot of those 95%. So these are not exactly the target market for the new MacBook Pro.

 

[aevan]

Ram has (almost) nothing to do with the heat a laptop produces. Also, it's not about opening several programs at the same time. I't about working with huge files simultaneously. If you don't do this, 16GB is more than enough. But it's also worth noting that a MacBook Air could handle these workloads just as fine for a lot of those 95%. So these are not exactly the target market for the new MacBook Pro.

Air doesn’t come with a Mini LED display and numerous other improvements. And 16Gb is fine for a lot of people who need the cpu performance gains, too.

 

[ASX]

The mini led display is no improvement. It's causing eye strain, headache because of pwm flickering and of course the massive glare.

 

[Ynk]

Steve Ballmer is that you? lol

 

[salvatore.p]

I think I repeated mutliple times that I never said “no one needs more RAM”. A LOT of people need more RAM. Just not people who “open a bunch of browser tabs” I can also say most 2D and 3D illustrators don’t need more.

I can agree but “don’t need” isn’t the same as “will not benefit”.

As I said on the beginning, I can do my job using whatever mac I have. Even my old 13” 2015 with just 8Gb of ram. But I will be way less productive, and my boss will be very angry with me.
I can say that I don’t need more ram, because the job can be done, but I will definitely benefit from having more.

I can presume the same behavior for 2D and 3D illustrators. They can benefit, if the should invest or not is a different story.
If you can be less productive, eg not a working use, and don’t want to waste money you should decide to buy a less expensive machine.

 

[salvatore.p]

Ram has (almost) nothing to do with the heat a laptop produces. Also, it's not about opening several programs at the same time. I't about working with huge files simultaneously. If you don't do this, 16GB is more than enough. But it's also worth noting that a MacBook Air could handle these workloads just as fine for a lot of those 95%. So these are not exactly the target market for the new MacBook Pro.

I have your exact idea.
Basically people can spend the double to take a 14” vs an Air, but should avoid paying more ram.

 

[ASX]

Ask yourself why Apple is making the base model so much cheaper. They know how to milk your purse to the maximum. They are limiting the basic specs so hard in order to force you to buy better models.

The sweetspot for this mbp are 32 gb ram and 1-2 tb ssd. If this would be the base model apples upselling wouldn't work .

 

[antst]

What kind of depresses me a little, everyone said I made the wrong decision picking up an 8GB M1 MBP last year, now this year I picked up a 16GB MBP and I still made the wrong decision. I can't win.

Life is tough!!!

 

[antst]

What program do you use? Lightroom with GPU acceleration enabled eats too much RAM according to some users.

I am not going in photo/graphics business I don’t use adobe products. Aside of fusion 360 for hobby.
my personal photos I process in capture one though.
But my memory pressure example is from my “light office workload”: few Miro boards, few VSCode windows (opened with remote sessions, so reasonably low local resources use), discord, telegram, google meet, maybe ms teams, bunch of browser tabs. This has problem with 16GB right now. On intel mbp it just no go, on M1 it mostly (mostly!) manages to work, but require regular kills of something.
Once I switched to M1 max 64GB, I clearly see that for this workload you need 32GB (I knew that before, of course). And 64 I need for more demanding stuff. (On my Linux workstation I have 128GB)

 

[antst]

I think I repeated mutliple times that I never said “no one needs more RAM”. A LOT of people need more RAM. Just not people who “open a bunch of browser tabs” I can also say most 2D and 3D illustrators don’t need more.

Having 32 or 64Gb RAM is not a new or recent thing, this option existed for a whole - so if you need more, you know you need more and you’re most likely upgrading from a machine that already has more.

To be precise, it depends on what sites those tabs are
Plus, with all this motion to metaverse, expect memory requirements for browsing to grow very fast over next two years.

 

[antst]

BTW, there is rule of thumb, which gives balanced memory/cores scenario: 4-8GB per core. on general average workload, this means you have enough data for cores to digest, and enough cores to digest data balanced average case.
It used to be 4 for quite some time, now, with eventual speed-up of cores it is moving towards 8.
Again, this is _average_. Of course you can have case me where 64 cores will have enough to do with 2 MB of data, and cases where one core is enough for processing 64GB. But on average, it is quite good rule of thumb.

 

[aevan]

Plus, with all this motion to metaverse, expect memory requirements for browsing to grow very fast over next two years.

Sorry, but this is spreading FUD. No, I don’t expect the memory requirements to grow in the next two years, especially in a world where 90% of browsing is done on 4-6Gb RAM phones. Metaverse has little to do with it, it’s still more an idea than anything else and making your purchase decisions based on such speculation is not a good advice. Because what if suddenly AR and VR becomes a thing for browsing - better get that M1 Max just in case!

You will be able to comfortably browse and use your apps with 16Gb RAM in 5 years, if you can do it today. And if you’re not - it might not be because of RAM anyway.