Video editing - 8/16 GB, Air/Pro?

[NotTooLate]

It’s possible with low ram, obviously. To say more ram isn’t better is ridiculous. That’s my point. You don’t get that, which is weird.
Just because you can do your stuff with 8gb ram doesn’t mean it doesn’t work better with double the ram.

I can chime in here as someone who works in this domain for over 15 years , there are some drawbacks for more RAM , ill explain a few.
1) - Timing , the bigger the DRAM the worst its timings can get (CL (read/write latency) for example) , and if you want to keep the better timings you pay more for a faster binned DRAM (doing an activate to a row that is "far" from the sense amplifier is harder to close your timing on , because the data needs to come from further away).
2) BW doesn't change if the DRAM is bigger , so if the SoC can use its OOO in an efficient way it can have all the data it ever needs in the 8GB DRAM (of course some is reserved to the OS and some to other programs) , so here the main benefit of more memory is the fact you can have more programs opened while they sit in the DRAM , but I don't think this is the discussion here , more DRAM =! more BW all the time , it just makes it less likely you will need to fetch something from your SSD , but today systems are not doing a 1 by 1 fetch , i.e if SW needs something from the SSD it doesn't bring 64B of data , and then go again to bring another 64B when the CPU requires it , it brings the data in large chunks and it does it via PRE fetch , i.e it guesses it needs it before the CPU uses it.
3) Power - less DRAM is less power consumed , dynamic and static (so less leakage on Idle) , so for anything battery ran , less DRAM is better for your battery.

There is a big shift of paradigm here , and as we are used to think about RAM == performance , because that's how it USED to be for the majority of users it is hard to come to terms with the fact we can SAVE money and have all the performance we can ever need.
Now , would having more DRAM might help with performance in certain use cases ? of course , no doubt , but those looks to be very non mainstream , to a point where if you do happen to do such a task once every other week , you should still use the 8GB and be OK.
If your day2day work really gets an edge by using more memory , then sure go for it , but I to be honest I didn't see the video/article of a M1 8GB vs M1 16GB in which the 16GB shows its advantage.

 

[Ethosik]

I can chime in here as someone who works in this domain for over 15 years , there are some drawbacks for more RAM , ill explain a few.
1) - Timing , the bigger the DRAM the worst its timings can get (CL (read/write latency) for example) , and if you want to keep the better timings you pay more for a faster binned DRAM (doing an activate to a row that is "far" from the sense amplifier is harder to close your timing on , because the data needs to come from further away).
2) BW doesn't change if the DRAM is bigger , so if the SoC can use its OOO in an efficient way it can have all the data it ever needs in the 8GB DRAM (of course some is reserved to the OS and some to other programs) , so here the main benefit of more memory is the fact you can have more programs opened while they sit in the DRAM , but I don't think this is the discussion here , more DRAM =! more BW all the time , it just makes it less likely you will need to fetch something from your SSD , but today systems are not doing a 1 by 1 fetch , i.e if SW needs something from the SSD it doesn't bring 64B of data , and then go again to bring another 64B when the CPU requires it , it brings the data in large chunks and it does it via PRE fetch , i.e it guesses it needs it before the CPU uses it.
3) Power - less DRAM is less power consumed , dynamic and static (so less leakage on Idle) , so for anything battery ran , less DRAM is better for your battery.

There is a big shift of paradigm here , and as we are used to think about RAM == performance , because that's how it USED to be for the majority of users it is hard to come to terms with the fact we can SAVE money and have all the performance we can ever need.
Now , would having more DRAM might help with performance in certain use cases ? of course , no doubt , but those looks to be very non mainstream , to a point where if you do happen to do such a task once every other week , you should still use the 8GB and be OK.
If your day2day work really gets an edge by using more memory , then sure go for it , but I to be honest I didn't see the video/article of a M1 8GB vs M1 16GB in which the 16GB shows its advantage.

I agree. That is why the usual recommendation is 8GB of RAM for 1080p and 16 GB of RAM for 4K. Sure, 8GB vs 128GB at 1080p shaves a few seconds off, but its only a few seconds. Now 8GB vs 16GB at 4K is a major improvement (4K is 4times the size after all which requires more RAM) which is why when anyone mentions 4K video editing, 16GB or more needs to be the recommendation.

 

[yoak]

I'm kind of expecting to return the 8gb Mini after I tested it out for a 16gb one, but availablity and reviews got the better of me and I'm curious to try the 8gb out for editing. I don't edit for a living, I shoot, so I don't need crazy fast export times, I need a smooth experience within final cut.
The challenge is that I shoot 4K, 6K and 8K, so we'll see

 

[Ethosik]

I'm kind of expecting to return the 8gb Mini after I tested it out for a 16gb one, but availablity and reviews got the better of me and I'm curious to try the 8gb out for editing. I don't edit for a living, I shoot, so I don't need crazy fast export times, I need a smooth experience within final cut.
The challenge is that I shoot 4K, 6K and 8K, so we'll see

Yeah definitely go with 16GB. Honestly, I would wait for the next round and hopefully get 32GB instead for those 8K items.

 

[cupcakes2000]

The guy asked whether to get 8 or 16gb. Not 128gb or 4tb (don’t know why you’re mentioning such obscene amounts in relation to this conversation @xWhiplash).

He mentioned running after effects where the recommended amount of system ram by Adobe is 16gb. That’s just to run the programme. (The minimum is 8)

The fact he is editing video in the first place, and the fact he wants a system to last, and the fact he can likely afford the 16gb option being as though he asked, all points to the better option of 16gb over 8.

 

[Booji]

The guy asked whether to get 8 or 16gb. Not 128gb or 4tb (don’t know why you’re mentioning such obscene amounts in relation to this conversation).

He mentioned running after effects where the recommended amount of system ram by Adobe is 16gb. That’s just to run the programme. (The minimum is 8)

The fact he is editing video in the first place, and the fact he wants a system to last, and the fact he can likely afford the 16gb option being as though he asked, all points to the better option of 16gb over 8.

After Effects is the ultimate resource hog. If you are considering any type of work on this, for safety I would certainly go with the 16GB unless there is anyone out there who has stress tested it and prove me wrong.

 

[MiragePL]

Thanks for all this discussion about 8/16 GB choice but what about Air/Pro choice in my particular case?

 

[Le0M]

Are you asking because you are on a tight budget? I would definitely recommend 16GB of RAM for 4K. A few posts back I did show a video from Max Tech that tested 8GB vs 16GB vs 32GB vs 64GB if you want to give that a watch.

Yeah, I’m on a tight budget, but after watching the video you mentioned I will definitely go for 16GB.
Thanks a lot!

 

[James_C]

The challenge is that I shoot 4K, 6K and 8K, so we'll see

I have seen some review that show that you may need 16GB for certain RAW formats and if you are planning to edit 8K then I would go for 16GB.

This review should be useful.

Apparently the requirements for DaVinci Resolve 17.1 Beta for Apple Silicon requires 16GB RAM.

 

[James_C]

Yeah, I’m on a tight budget, but after watching the video you mentioned I will definitely go for 16GB.
Thanks a lot!

For what you want to do there will not be a great deal of difference in performance between the Air and the Pro, certainly not worth the premium for the Pro in my opinion, even though there are some small benefits to battery life, screen brightness and microphones. It really comes down to whether you want the Touch Bar or not.

 

[Maconplasma]

What do you want? My username and passwords so you can watch the lectures I paid for? I CANNOT show those videos to you.

If you can't reveal your sources then don't make bogus over-the-top exaggerated claims saying "MANY MANY MANY professionals are fine with 8GB Ram". Hey you made a big claim, you're getting called out for it and you're getting heated because you can't back it up. You're expecting people to just accept what you stated and say nothing. Ridiculous. Just remember, you were making the argument against others here who prefer more than 8GB of Ram. I'll leave it at that and I'm done here because you're just blowing smoke. SMH.

 

[Ethosik]

If you can't reveal your sources then don't make bogus over-the-top exaggerated claims saying "MANY MANY MANY professionals are fine with 8GB Ram". Hey you made a big claim, you're getting called out for it and you're getting heated because you can't back it up. You're expecting people to just accept what you stated and say nothing. Ridiculous. I'll leave it at that and I'm done here.

I am sorry, I wish I could legally give you my username and password to show. I was PISSED OFF when I heard this statement not from one professor, but many instructors and I was sitting there with 128 GB of RAM because people everywhere kept saying "GET as much memory as you can". So I tested it out myself. I removed my RAM sticks and tested my workflow with 8GB of RAM. Wow a whopping 20 seconds slower. NOT WORTH IT. And Max's video is proof of this. Yes 4K took 2x as long at 8GB of RAM and its expected as 4K is more demanding. So therefore, 1080p will be much faster.

Sorry, when a company you work for tells you to get certifications, I do not look at random blog sites and articles. I found very good online lectures/courses that have their own certifications.

I spent thousands of dollars on education on this, from many sites that I already listed - Udemy, Lynda, Corsera and more.

And BTW, I was skeptical like I said. I didn't take their statement at face value otherwise I would not have even tested it with 8GB on my system. But I did, and it just got me so pissed that I threw away $600 on 128GB of RAM because "MORE RAM IS BETTER" statements.

 

[cupcakes2000]

I am sorry, I wish I could legally give you my username and password to show. I was PISSED OFF when I heard this statement not from one professor, but many instructors and I was sitting there with 128 GB of RAM because people everywhere kept saying "GET as much memory as you can". So I tested it out myself. I removed my RAM sticks and tested my workflow with 8GB of RAM. Wow a whopping 20 seconds slower. NOT WORTH IT. And Max's video is proof of this. Yes 4K took 2x as long at 8GB of RAM and its expected as 4K is more demanding. So therefore, 1080p will be much faster.

Sorry, when a company you work for tells you to get certifications, I do not look at random blog sites and articles. I found very good online lectures/courses that have their own certifications.

I spent thousands of dollars on education on this, from many sites that I already listed - Udemy, Lynda, Corsera and more.

And BTW, I was skeptical like I said. I didn't take their statement at face value otherwise I would not have even tested it with 8GB on my system. But I did, and it just got me so pissed that I threw away $600 on 128GB of RAM because "MORE RAM IS BETTER" statements.

I’m so sceptical of this claim.

When I got my Mac mini i7 3.2 2018, I got it with 8gb, so as to save money for the upgrade. I ran it like that for about a month. I’m a professional photographer, and I shoot video from time to time for various clients.
Lightroom, premiere, after effects, photoshop and devinci resolve were all dog slow, stuttering messes. Regardless as to whether 8gb is ‘enough’ to edit, it wasn’t a pleasure to edit.
This was coming from a 2014 imac 27 5k with a 4gb dGPU and 32 gb ram.
As soon as I upgraded back to 32gb, it became once again fluid and easy.

I also use an iPad, and obviously it has much less ram. Editing on this is far smoother than either of those desktops - using lightroom at least, regardless of the ram limits. It also works very well with 4K using Luma.

The new m1 chip obviously has a lot more leaway with ram, and so perhaps 8gb could be ‘enough’. For someone needing the machine to edit video however, NOT getting the 16gb upgrade (not talking about 128gb or 4 tb here) would be a risk I would not like to take.

The more effects you add, the more plugins you use, the more video tracks you have, the more apps you want to use at the same time, these all come in to play.

It’s therefore completely obvious, logical and absolutely proven, that given a choice between 8gb and 16gb (again, I’m not talking 128gb here), the higher option is better for these type of projects.

To say otherwise without any reasonable proof is misleading at best.

 

[Ethosik]

I’m so sceptical of this claim.

When I got my Mac mini i7 3.2 2018, I got it with 8gb, so as to save money for the upgrade. I ran it like that for about a month. I’m a professional photographer, and I shoot video from time to time for various clients.
Lightroom, premiere, after effects, photoshop and devinci resolve were all dog slow, stuttering messes. Regardless as to whether 8gb is ‘enough’ to edit, it wasn’t a pleasure to edit.
This was coming from a 2014 imac 27 5k with a 4gb dGPU and 32 gb ram.
As soon as I upgraded back to 32gb, it became once again fluid and easy.

I also use an iPad, and obviously it has much less ram. Editing on this is far smoother than either of those desktops - using lightroom at least, regardless of the ram limits. It also works very well with 4K using Luma.

The new m1 chip obviously has a lot more leaway with ram, and so perhaps 8gb could be ‘enough’. For someone needing the machine to edit video however, NOT getting the 16gb upgrade (not talking about 128gb or 4 tb here) would be a risk I would not like to take.

The more effects you add, the more plugins you use, the more video tracks you have, the more apps you want to use at the same time, these all come in to play.

It’s therefore completely obvious, logical and absolutely proven, that given a choice between 8gb and 16gb (again, I’m not talking 128gb here), the higher option is better for these type of projects.

To say otherwise without any reasonable proof is misleading at best.

But it sounds like you were doing 4K work. Where I specifically mentioned 8GB is not enough. 1080p works just fine on 8GB of RAM.

I have provided proof time and time again. Here it is again, whopping 1.66GB of RAM being used for my 5 hour, 138GB 1080p video. It has many cuts, transitions, titles, effects.

 

[yoak]

I posted this in another thread, but really applies to this one. First review I've seen where he runs into RAM problem. (running out)

Techkhamun

This channel is to show my interests in Technology, Camera Gear and Tech News. This is a passion of mine and I really enjoy doing this so please sub and like...

www.youtube.com

 

[cupcakes2000]

But it sounds like you were doing 4K work. Where I specifically mentioned 8GB is not enough. 1080p works just fine on 8GB of RAM.

I have provided proof time and time again. Here it is again, whopping 1.66GB of RAM being used for my 5 hour, 138GB 1080p video. It has many cuts, transitions, titles, effects.

View attachment 1677066

I do all sorts of stuff, mainly still photograph, but also sd, hd and 4K depending on my clients needs. 8gb ram on a traditional intel system isn’t enough to operate efficiently. Ymmv, as you keep insisting, but there is no doubt that 16gb makes things more efficient on a system doing this type of work.

 

[Ethosik]

I do all sorts of stuff, mainly still photograph, but also sd, hd and 4K depending on my clients needs. 8gb ram on a traditional intel system isn’t enough to operate efficiently. Ymmv, as you keep insisting, but there is no doubt that 16gb makes things more efficient on a system doing this type of work.

If someone even mentions 4K its an immediate 16GB of RAM or more recommendation from me. But if you are doing 100% 1080p (or standard def) footage then 8GB of RAM is plenty. So the fact that even if you do one 4K project a year, I would still not advise you get 8GB, I would recommend 16GB for you. So we are in agreement. Just like I mentioned in my first post. And I would strongly recommend 32GB for 8K editing.

 

[cupcakes2000]

If someone even mentions 4K its an immediate 16GB of RAM or more recommendation from me. But if you are doing 100% 1080p (or standard def) footage then 8GB of RAM is plenty. So the fact that even if you do one 4K project a year, I would still not advise you get 8GB, I would recommend 16GB for you. So we are in agreement. Just like I mentioned in my first post. And I would strongly recommend 32GB for 8K editing.

We are not in agreement. The op asked for ram recommendations specifically mentioning the use of after effects. The recommendation form Adobe is 16gb ram just for that programme. Sure it runs on 8, but nobody would recommend that for a smooth work day.

I don’t know what the M1 will bring re- ram requirements though, i have no experience other than the positive iPad experiences I have had. I’m recommending based on intel systems, as you are.

 

[Ethosik]

We are not in agreement. The op asked for ram recommendations specifically mentioning the use of after effects. The recommendation form Adobe is 16gb ram just for that programme. Sure it runs on 8, but nobody would recommend that for a smooth work day.

I don’t know what the M1 will bring re- ram requirements though, i have no experience other than the positive iPad experiences I have had. I’m recommending based on intel systems, as you are.

You said 16GB is better, and you specifically mentioned you do SOME 4K work. We are in agreement. Unless you are saying now 16GB is not good anymore?

My first post on this was - 1080p is fine at 8GB, 4K is fine at 16GB. How are we not in an agreement? You SPECIFICALLY said in your post 16GB is better. And you mentioned you do SOME 4K. So my recommendation if you asked would be to get 16GB. You say 16GB, I say 16GB. That sure sounds like an agreement to me.

And Adobe After Effects will use as much memory as possible. The same 1080p 30 second .ae project on 128GB of RAM uses 110GB of my RAM. But on 8GB it is just as smooth to edit and process the video. This is just how Adobe files work. It doesn't mean I need 110GB or more RAM, it is just configured to eat up as much memory as possible. But would you tell me I need 128GB of RAM for just 1080p video editing? But my AE program is taking up 110GB of it

 

[cupcakes2000]

You said 16GB is better, and you specifically mentioned you do SOME 4K work. We are in agreement. Unless you are saying now 16GB is not good anymore?

My first post on this was - 1080p is fine at 8GB, 4K is fine at 16GB. How are we not in an agreement? You SPECIFICALLY said in your post 16GB is better. And you mentioned you do SOME 4K. So my recommendation if you asked would be to get 16GB. You say 16GB, I say 16GB. That sure sounds like an agreement to me.

And Adobe After Effects will use as much memory as possible. The same 1080p 30 second .ae project on 128GB of RAM uses 110GB of my RAM. But on 8GB it is just as smooth to edit and process the video. This is just how Adobe files work. It doesn't mean I need 110GB or more RAM, it is just configured to eat up as much memory as possible. But would you tell me I need 128GB of RAM for just 1080p video editing? But my AE program is taking up 110GB of it

You recommended the op get 8gb. I think 16gb is a wiser choice, for his intended usage, therefore we are not in agreement.

Going to leave it there though now, it’s pointless going round and round in circles for days.

 

[Ethosik]

You recommended the op get 8gb. I think 16gb is a wiser choice, for his intended usage, therefore we are not in agreement.

Going to leave it there though now, it’s pointless going round and round in circles for days.

And that is perfectly fine. If you feel like he should go with 16GB then that is fine. That is why we have a discussion after all. From my past experience and my courses I took, I was told and I personally verified with my 5-10 hour footage on 1080p content that 8GB of RAM is fine. If you like to recommend 16GB than that is fine. You prefer to use 16GB since you also mentioned you do have some 4K content. I would recommend 16GB too. But the poster mentioned only HD footage, which is why I think an 8GB would be fine. If he does even one thing at 4K my recommendation would change. But he did not mentioned 4K.

After effects is not a good way to gauge how much memory you need. I do not have access to my 128GB system right now, but I have a windows system with 64GB of RAM. That same 1080p clip is taking up 55GB of my RAM. It would be doubled with 128GB of RAM. Does this mean I need that much for 1080p video work? AE just uses up RAM, however much you can throw at it.