Unless that cheap RAM can provide unified CPU/GPU memory, it’s worthless for me.
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.
Replace 2022 Mac Studio M1 Ultra with top Mac Mini M4 Pro
- Thread starter Jeff Sorley
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually the configs I suggest are:
2] M2 MBP, 96 GB RAM: ~$3,000
1 & 2 removed as not being enough RAM upgrade from 64
3] M4 MBP, 128 GB RAM: ~$5,000
4] M3 MBP, 128 GB RAM: ~$4,500
But mid-January 2025 I recommend that the OP wait if possible to see the [alleged] next Studio version likely out this year. If he cannot wait I would go with choices #3 or #4 above, but an M3 MBP appropriately configured is likely difficult to find.
Last edited:
Sorry, but IMO no to the M4 Ultra because it costs about twice as much (~$8k)! What the OP needs for PS is a Max chip and 128 GB RAM. Ultra - although very nice hardware - is a waste of money unless one has lots of money and wants to build a beast box with 256 GB RAM (assuming the next Studio allows that). An M2 Studio Ultra is a choice I had not considered. A used one with at least 128 GB RAM would be a sweet solution if available.
We strongly agree that the OP should wait to see the next Studio if feasible. I also agree that the Mini should not even be part of this discussion.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
And if me... and I'm running into "too little RAM" problems now, I'm not going to spend $3K for only 32GB of additional RAM in what is already a 2 generation old Mac (#1 or #2) options. I'd actually be worried I'd just soon overrun the additional 32GB too and then need ANOTHER $5K for another 32GB RAM (or more) hop... because that's the game with Silicon Mac: need more RAM or internal storage??? Buy a whole new Mac (or fairly old Macs in 3 out of those 4 options).
So, if I'm OP, I first consider the idea that maybe by closing images eating existing memory that maybe I don't need open too, I can resolve my RAM problem with the Mac I already own. If so, problem solved and I don't have to spend another nickel right now.
But if that's not possible because- as you imagined- his workflow requires multiple Photoshop images open at the same time, I consider the stretch I just laid out a few years ago to buy all the Mac I thought I would need for many years and decide if I want to have to spend all that again when I only actually need more RAM now. And do I potentially want to face the same problem again maybe 3 or 4 years from now when I perhaps need even more RAM than what I stretch my finances to buy in 2025?
If not, maybe I take my Adobe work to a much more flexible PC where should I bump into RAM limits again, I can just add more RAM instead of replacing the entire computer. And that RAM is priced by competitive market forces instead of at many times such pricing.
But to each his own. Maybe he can only consider Mac and only Mac too and will just keep coming up with fresh rounds of $3K-$5K dollars each time he needs more RAM or more storage than he last guessed as "plenty."
So, if I'm OP, I first consider the idea that maybe by closing images eating existing memory that maybe I don't need open too, I can resolve my RAM problem with the Mac I already own. If so, problem solved and I don't have to spend another nickel right now.
But if that's not possible because- as you imagined- his workflow requires multiple Photoshop images open at the same time, I consider the stretch I just laid out a few years ago to buy all the Mac I thought I would need for many years and decide if I want to have to spend all that again when I only actually need more RAM now. And do I potentially want to face the same problem again maybe 3 or 4 years from now when I perhaps need even more RAM than what I stretch my finances to buy in 2025?
If not, maybe I take my Adobe work to a much more flexible PC where should I bump into RAM limits again, I can just add more RAM instead of replacing the entire computer. And that RAM is priced by competitive market forces instead of at many times such pricing.
But to each his own. Maybe he can only consider Mac and only Mac too and will just keep coming up with fresh rounds of $3K-$5K dollars each time he needs more RAM or more storage than he last guessed as "plenty."
Yes, that is what I have done forever, and yes I only consider Mac and only Mac. Buying a loaded box I have always found 6-7 year life cycles, not 3-4 years. IMO the folks who end up needing upgrades in 3-4 years typically bought less loaded versions, less RAM in particular.
Also your point about 96 GB probably not being a wise choice is a solid observation. I will edit my recommendation above accordingly to eliminate the 96 GB RAM choices.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
OP bought "the most powerful" Mac available at the time: M1 Ultra Studio with 64GB of RAM just a few years ago. I have to think he imagined that would be PLENTY for the usual 7+ years or so. Instead, only about 3 years later, he's bumping into RAM shortages. And his only (hardware) remedy is lay out substantial cash to buy more RAM... which is only possible in Silicon Macs by buying an entirely new Mac.
Last edited:
I have nothing but good things to say about my work laptop M3 Max 128GB RAM. Performance is on par with my 2019 Mac Pro in multithreaded workflows like 3D rendering but totally destroys it in After Effects. Photoshop is about the same on both.
Although I will mention in this thread; I have mentioned it elsewhere. Before I had the M3 laptop I was doing all my heavy work stuff on my Mac Pro since my work laptop was weak compared to it. Initially I only had 32GB of RAM in my MacPro with the 580x GPU; but upgraded to a dual W6800. This was bad since I had twice as much VRAM as physical RAM. After adding another 192GB of OWC RAM to the Mac Pro, it was a totally different machine.
The reason I need so much RAM is I deal with massive resolutions in After Effects for LED wall graphic stuff. 8k worth of pixels requires a lot of RAM. I also never realized how important single core performance was for After Effects, which is mainly why the M3 Max smokes the Mac Pro. Intel Xeon CPUs suck at single core; at least the ones Apple decided to put in the 2019 Mac Pro.
Although I will mention in this thread; I have mentioned it elsewhere. Before I had the M3 laptop I was doing all my heavy work stuff on my Mac Pro since my work laptop was weak compared to it. Initially I only had 32GB of RAM in my MacPro with the 580x GPU; but upgraded to a dual W6800. This was bad since I had twice as much VRAM as physical RAM. After adding another 192GB of OWC RAM to the Mac Pro, it was a totally different machine.
The reason I need so much RAM is I deal with massive resolutions in After Effects for LED wall graphic stuff. 8k worth of pixels requires a lot of RAM. I also never realized how important single core performance was for After Effects, which is mainly why the M3 Max smokes the Mac Pro. Intel Xeon CPUs suck at single core; at least the ones Apple decided to put in the 2019 Mac Pro.
He’s not running into RAM shortages. He said this in an earlier post. Page 1.
Chances are it’s Adobe’s software bugging him out
Memory appears fine, at least at the system level.
Photoshop configuration/settings? 🤷♂️ I dumped Adobe products many moons ago, primarily due to price but several good contenders have also entered the market. Anyway...
The spike in CPU usage, across the board, intrigues me. I suggest you try to remember to glance at the CPU activity and see if the spike(s) correlate(s) with the lag.
With that said, I was trying to determine how much uplift a newer CPU would have for you. Comparing these results:
PugetBench List
Build your own computer, workstation, mini pc, or server at Puget Custom Computers.
PugetBench List
Build your own computer, workstation, mini pc, or server at Puget Custom Computers.
The M4 Pro appears to be ~37% more potent than the M1 Ultra. Of course, I don’t know how close PugentBench mimics your workload (i.e., how well it will mitigate those spikes).
Depending on how much RAM has been allocated to Photoshop; it could still be a RAM issues and the slow down could be because Photoshop is starting to use the SSD drive for extra memory.
I don’t use Photoshop any longer, but when I did, it had its own memory setting. So no matter how much RAM your computer has, you need to allocate the memory in Photoshop Preferences.
No, OP did not buy "the most powerful" Mac available at the time. OP bought half the RAM available. So now a few years later we find that the M1 Studio Ultra is now constrained by having chosen half the available RAM.
I think this is the right answer. Adobe's software is so bloated, and the pics the OP posted show the hardware isn't constrained.
This might be more of an Adobe issue than an Apple one...
PS is very bad at using multiple CPU cores or the GPU. An M4 is twice as fast as an M1 at single core work, and the OP might find it much better for that reason alone. Oddly, LR uses all available resources more often.
(I redid these experiments last week. PS really has no excuse!)
(I redid these experiments last week. PS really has no excuse!)
It is a [PS] user issue that OS/app would like more RAM in the hardware being used. I left Adobe [which always used pretty much whatever RAM was available to improve operation], but I find similar but different behavior with other images apps.
Note that for a pro app to use lots of RAM is not "bloated," it is good sound pro app operation. Use of RAM is a great way to compute. To that end, adding on +$400 or +$800 to a $4k or $5k purchase to optimize the operation of that pricey box is a no-brainer.
Last edited:
Hold on for a second. Photoshop limits its maximum memory usage in settings. Surely this will affect the Activity Monitor's memory pressure numbers? If Photoshop reaches its allowed maximum, which OP set as 34GB, and Mac OS and everything else takes 16GB, naturally the memory pressure will be green with only 50GB of 64GB used. This doesn't mean Photoshop isn't memory-starved.
@Jeff Sorley, have you tried increasing the Photoshop's max RAM usage setting from 34GB to 48GB and seeing if the lagging continues in the same way?
Also, can you see how much "scratch space" (swap?) Photoshop is using and report here?
"Photoshop CC also displays RAM and scratch disk usage and allocation in the Scratch Sizes section of the status bar."
Lastly, take a look at this this post from Puget Systems. There is a relationship between file size and how much memory Photoshop uses.
Last edited:
I think you misread what I'm getting at. Not referring to ram use at all. I mean that Photoshop's code is bloated and it's not efficient. Adobe can probably eek out a lot more performance by optimizing it further.
For a 2D image manipulation app to “need” that much RAM is insane.
For post movie production apps, 3D rendering engines etc it’s understandable there’s an awful lot going on.
Adobe could just write better software.
Are you working on these images direct from internal storage or somewhere else?
From the metrics I’ve seen posted in thread it sounds more like an io problem but where the workload is, is unclear.
Maybe you have not looked at what modern 2D image editing software does in pro work, or how fast we users expect to see results of our actions [hint: milliseconds]; there is a lot going on.
I say I want my apps to use RAM because it makes for fast operation. I do not want Adobe et al. to "just write better software" focusing on using less RAM, I want Adobe et al. to just write better software. If that means gobbling RAM to do it that is fine with me; I can buy RAM but I cannot personally write the better software.
I don't understand why people are talking about better CPUs and more RAM when neither of those things seems to be a problem here.
You said you have a scratch disk connected via TB4. Have you benchmarked that disk? Being on TB4 won't matter if the drive itself is slow or nearly at capacity.
It's rather absurd that in this day and age Adobe asks the user to manually set the memory allocation, and it makes it very hard to diagnose what's happening because all the system performance tools look at system performance, they can't peek inside Adobe's memory management system.
It's possible that Adobe is aggressively pushing your unused images to scratch to make room for your active image and then sometimes needs to swap it all back in. You won't see it as swap in the memory panel because Adobe doesn't use the system memory manager or the system swap file.
There are tools that will monitor disk accesses, someone here might have a favorite. See how much traffic is going to your external scratch disk.
That’s a very generous approach Allen. It implies you’re happy to spend tens of thousands every year on computer upgrades in preference to Adobe writing software.
Here’s what I don’t quite get though. A 80 megapixel 64bit image comes in at around 600Mb. Even if all thirty of the OP’s layers generated another image just as big then the RAM required would still only be near 20Gb!
Why on Earth then would a suitable recommendation be to the OP that they need 128Gb of RAM? When 64gb should be eating that up whole?
it can only be at the door of Adobe, or in this case another defect on the OP’s system.
I haven’t allocated/set RAM amount/limit per app since classic Mac OS. Back then, if the app exceeded the RAM allotment, it would crash. According to Adobe, PS should throw an "out-of-RAM or out-of-memory error” alert.
From the same document:
FYI, 70% of 64GB is ~45GB. 85% is ~55GB.
Gotta agree with the general consensus that the best course of action would be to wait for the M4 Studios, and then get the 128GB M4 Max model, provided that will exist - which we have every reason to believe it will as there is an M4 Max MBP with that amount of memory. I have a hard time believing an M2 Ultra with that amount of RAM will be so much cheaper it warrants buying a used machine instead.