Size of files doesn't necessarily mean you need that amount of RAM. Like I said in another post of mine, I had a 2010 Mac Pro with 8GB of RAM. I would edit high quality 8 hours of footage where the file size was 500 GB. I did not need 500GB of RAM. That was even with SATA 2 SSDs too! Editing experience and rendering was perfectly fine. My 2019 i9 iMac with 128GB of RAM did not make any significant impact except I could now work with HEVC (which has nothing to do with RAM and just new computer can use new technology).
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
PSA: you probably don’t need 32 or 64Gb RAM unless you know you need it.
- Thread starter aevan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- macbook pro ram
- Sort by reaction score
I don't think we can only go by this because no matter how much RAM I throw at my system, if I configure After Effects poorly I can get red memory pressure. Even working on 1080p footage where 8GB of RAM is enough. Adobe systems just use up all your RAM, not matter what you have, if configured that way. I even experience this on Windows. 8GB of RAM compared to 256GB of RAM on the same video project, AE just eats up all the RAM. Does that mean I need MORE than 256GB of RAM? No, its just the application uses as much as you have.
Yes, desirable instead of need. That is what I was alluding to - that using the word need is not exactly the right way to go.
In my opinion, swap and compression are tools designed to augment RAM when the system thinks it could do with more RAM. When you push that limit as well, the memory pressure would get into yellow, is what I think. I could be totally wrong or I could be somewhat wrong here. This is only a thinking that I hold based on the understanding of what swap and compression are there for.
RAM is costly, and if things can be handled with technology (compression and swap) then we are able to keep the entry cost down. That is what it is about, is what I think. In an ideal world, we would run everything in memory and storage would be used only for storage and there would be no compression - if RAM were free, that is.
Since RAM comes at a cost, especially the insane one that Apple charges, we do tend to go with the bare adequate versus what we would otherwise have purchased if we were buying a desktop system with far cheaper RAM modules.
Last edited:
in my case, I started with a 16’’ 16Gb Pro to run Lightroom Classic. It led to amber memory pressure and swap file usage. swapping that out for a 32gb Max model still leads to higher memory pressure than I’m used to with the 32gb core i9 MacBook Pro but is probably an acceptable compromise between memory and the extra battery drain that an additional 32gb ram would entail. (The additional battery life, slightly nicer screen and extra ports are the selling points of the new model to me: the additional weight is offset by the absence of need to carry a charger.)
Adobe have had long enough to tune Lightroom Classic to the new architecture, so I assume that they have made Lightroom Classic memory hungry for a pragmatic reason, rather than incompetence. Likewise MacOs must by now be reasonably well tuned.
it would be good to understand the thinking behind these performance characteristics.
Adobe have had long enough to tune Lightroom Classic to the new architecture, so I assume that they have made Lightroom Classic memory hungry for a pragmatic reason, rather than incompetence. Likewise MacOs must by now be reasonably well tuned.
it would be good to understand the thinking behind these performance characteristics.
Lightroom is sucking up a lot of the shared RAM for its GPU acceleration.
If you disable the GPU acceleration (Lightroom Preferences > Performance > Use Graphics processor > Off) you will see the memory pressure go way down. (Might need a restart.)
Not recommending disabling it for normal use - just explaining what is going on.
With an Intel machine which has separate VRAM this does not occur.
I have been using a base 16GB MBP for 3 weeks now, mainly lightroom and photoshop and other usual apps. While I think 16GB is OK, especially as this is a secondary computer, if I were to do it again for a primary computer I would probably go for 32GB.
Today I tried loading up Lightroom Classic with 180MP photos, plus Photoshop with eighty 45MP photos, plus Lightroom CC, plus Safari, etc, and managed to push it to over 22GB swap. Amazingly, there was almost no hesitation switching apps or lagginess. So 16GB seems to work fine: at no point have I thought: OMG I've made a huge mistake! Realistically, 99% of the time I am editing much fewer/smaller photos at a time.
But 32GB would be nice. Wish it didn't cost $400.
Today I tried loading up Lightroom Classic with 180MP photos, plus Photoshop with eighty 45MP photos, plus Lightroom CC, plus Safari, etc, and managed to push it to over 22GB swap. Amazingly, there was almost no hesitation switching apps or lagginess. So 16GB seems to work fine: at no point have I thought: OMG I've made a huge mistake! Realistically, 99% of the time I am editing much fewer/smaller photos at a time.
But 32GB would be nice. Wish it didn't cost $400.
Last edited:
I have this as my primary (and only!) which is why I tend to get a higher spec than what I need right now.
For me, ideally, I would have a good iMac and the cheapest Air for travel. That’s it.
Nice video which really shoots straight to the point. Sometimes you need that 32 gigs.
Yes, after seeing that video is why I tested 180 MP photos. Not my usual thing, though. Even my 32GB iMac struggles a bit with 180 MP photos (when layering auto-mask brush masking over neural filter masks)
Last edited:
When you run out of RAM the computer pushes data from RAM to the SSD. This is swap. When it needs this data again, it brings it back from the SSD to the RAM.
Swap is bad for two reasons: 1) pushing data from RAM to the SSD and bringing it back again is slower than just having it in RAM, 2) SSDs have a finite life. The more written and erased on the SSD shortens it life.
The newer SSDs are faster so the "swap" may be unnoticeable. Also, the newer SSDs have a longer lifespan.
Will "swap" impact you? It depends on how you use the computer and for how long.
Don
Swap is bad for two reasons: 1) pushing data from RAM to the SSD and bringing it back again is slower than just having it in RAM, 2) SSDs have a finite life. The more written and erased on the SSD shortens it life.
The newer SSDs are faster so the "swap" may be unnoticeable. Also, the newer SSDs have a longer lifespan.
Will "swap" impact you? It depends on how you use the computer and for how long.
Don
Now I’d like advice for 16 vs. 32 GB of RAM for use with music production and sample libraries. I’m talking about several instances of Kontakt and Vienna Ensemble.
Pro Tools recommends 32 GB and states that the minimum is 16 GB. However, I think that’s an exaggeration. Pro Tools isn’t even optimized for Apple Silicon yet. Cubase has much more forgiving specs (8Gb as a minimum, IIRC).
Now I’m using Pro Tools with a MBP from 2012 loaded with 16GB and a SSD. The memory pressure stays on the green side most of the time. I haven’t loaded lots of Virtual Instruments lately. This weekend I ran a project with some instances of BFD 3, Battery 4, Kontakt 6 and Reaktor 6 and the computer behaved well, but the session wasn’t very large.
Audio producers with a M1 Pro, specially those with the 16 GB version: is it enough for you? I’m inclined to think that it is but, as many others, I’m afraid of being wrong and not buying enough RAM.
The SSD is going to be 2TB. I think that’s a good sweet spot for storing sample libraries, audio and some video for the sporadic video projects I may have.
Pro Tools recommends 32 GB and states that the minimum is 16 GB. However, I think that’s an exaggeration. Pro Tools isn’t even optimized for Apple Silicon yet. Cubase has much more forgiving specs (8Gb as a minimum, IIRC).
Now I’m using Pro Tools with a MBP from 2012 loaded with 16GB and a SSD. The memory pressure stays on the green side most of the time. I haven’t loaded lots of Virtual Instruments lately. This weekend I ran a project with some instances of BFD 3, Battery 4, Kontakt 6 and Reaktor 6 and the computer behaved well, but the session wasn’t very large.
Audio producers with a M1 Pro, specially those with the 16 GB version: is it enough for you? I’m inclined to think that it is but, as many others, I’m afraid of being wrong and not buying enough RAM.
The SSD is going to be 2TB. I think that’s a good sweet spot for storing sample libraries, audio and some video for the sporadic video projects I may have.
Thank you for the video! Definitely more points towards the 16GB, although I see that he uses a lot of external rig instead of just samplers. I’ll have to investigate further.
I would say, do not try to optimise here for few hundred dollars when you will be using this machine to produce work that pays for the machine and more. You will be happier having some headroom.
He mostly uses a ton of plug-in synths. I’m not sure how much RAM Vienna can use.
I mix music in Logic and Live but never come close to saturating 16GB
Here’s another professional mixer’s findings,
Hey - Im in the same position currently deciding 16 GB or 32 GB,,,,I run a very large external monitor so need to take that into consideration but how are you finding it?
I run chrome all the time on my other machines (also 16gb) and never get yellow memory pressure.
Here is basically the same workflow with way more chrome tabs open on my MBA:
Here is basically the same workflow with way more chrome tabs open on my MBA:
I rebooted and it seems to have gone back to normal. I think I've isolated the issue to Microsoft Teams, which is notably not Apple Silicon native. I wonder if it's a Rosetta issue.