Which of your favourite apps are real RAM hogs?

[OSXphoto]

Hi folks,
Debating 32 vs 64GB RAM for new MacBook Pro. I know I need more than 16GB. I’m unsure I’ll need more than 32, but I might.
So I’m interested in which RAM hungry apps you use, so I can decide for myself if 64GB is worth it for me.

Thanks!

 

[wilberforce]

Photoshop and Lightroom. But even these seldom really need 64GB. I have had up to 20GB swap on a 16GB 14" MBP, when running them concurrently, but usually much less.

 

[OSXphoto]

Thank you.

I’m a pro photographer. I use those two apps simultaneously as well. My 16GB M1 air and 16GB 2013 MBP choke a bit when I have other apps running such as Mail, safari and MS office.

I also use iMovie.

I suppose 32gb will be plenty for daily use. And I’d rather not spend more than strictly necessary. But I also don’t want to be sorry in 4-6 years. My current 2013 MBP is 9 years old so I tend to keep my gear for a long time.

Any more apps on this list?

 

[wilberforce]

Check out videos by ArtisRight, if you have not already done so. He has many thoughtful comparisons, using LR and PS. However, he tends to compare rather extreme use cases, so bear in mind the context in which he is comparing. It depends on how much you want to spend for a few minutes saved when exporting 1000 photos, for example. It's not as if less RAM won't run, it just runs a little slower for intense workloads

 

[OSXphoto]

Yes I’ve watched his videos. However he is testing current MacBooks with current software, which is of course all that can be tested.
But consider this: in 2013 I was running a now legacy Lightroom 5 standalone version and my photos just flied across the display, only 6 GB or so used. Now in 2022 with the same machine and the latest Lr Classic, 16GB can be so tight that the machine slows down significantly. And it already started to do so in 2021 and 2020. I work with large 200000+ image catalogs.
Thus, the memory usage of Lr has more than doubled in 7-9 years.
So If we need about 16-24GB in 2022, we could need 32-48GB in 2029. Sometime along this timeline I could wish for 64GB. Or maybe not. That is the question.
For Lr alone, I would get 32GB. But I’m curious what other RAM hungry apps people use.

 

[gradi]

Recent video comparing lots of Apple Silicon Macs with various amounts of RAM. Focuses on heavy duty use of photo apps (Lightroom, Photoshop, Capture One, etc.).

M2 Macbook Air Base Real World Photography Benchmark, vs M1 Air, M2 Macbook Pro

 

[jav6454]

Hi folks,
Debating 32 vs 64GB RAM for new MacBook Pro. I know I need more than 16GB. I’m unsure I’ll need more than 32, but I might.
So I’m interested in which RAM hungry apps you use, so I can decide for myself if 64GB is worth it for me.

Thanks!

Can you afford 64GB of memory? If so, get it.

 

[jz0309]

Given that we are talking “unified” RAM, for LR and PS (I’m a hobby photographer) I will choose 64GB when I upgrade my 2017 iMac to a M computer.

 

[wilberforce]

Can you afford 64GB of memory? If so, get it.

I don't agree with that approach. "Afford" is often not the limitation, and is usually not a number that can be precisely defined.
The question is what benefits are gained by the marginal increase in cost.
If "afford" means liquid funds available, I can "afford" anything and everything that Apple sells. I do not set a budget for anything. But I am not about to spend extra for something which does not provide sufficiently meaningful benefits for me, and no-one else can determine for me whether it is worthwhile. If 64GB RAM cost $1000 (which I can afford), I should still get it?
Perhaps you need to explain what you mean by "afford."

 

[jav6454]

I don't agree with that approach. "Afford" is often not the limitation, and is usually not a number that can be precisely defined.
The question is what benefits are gained by the marginal increase in cost.
If "afford" means liquid funds available, I can "afford" anything and everything that Apple sells. I do not set a budget for anything. But I am not about to spend extra for something which does not provide sufficiently meaningful benefits for me, and no-one else can determine for me whether it is worthwhile. If 64GB RAM cost $1000 (which I can afford), I should still get it?
Perhaps you need to explain what you mean by "afford."

Well, that's your opinion. Mine is, and hence my advise, is to always get the highest memory you can afford and is within budget.

For example, if 32GB of memory was offered when I bought my Mac, and it costed $400 extra, I would get it.

Finally, the advise centers on upgradeability, or rather, the lack of. When you buy your MacBook (Pro/Air/Non-Pro) you are stuck to that configuration you initially purchased. There is no option to add more memory later. Hence, should you encounter a situation where more memory is needed, you will be out of luck and stuck.

So, should the situation be where you are unsure, always go higher when able to. After all, no memory amount is ever wasted.

 

[wilberforce]

Well, that's your opinion. Mine is, and hence my advise, is to always get the highest memory you can afford and is within budget.

For example, if 32GB of memory was offered when I bought my Mac, and it costed $400 extra, I would get it.

Finally, the advise centers on upgradeability, or rather, the lack of. When you buy your MacBook (Pro/Air/Non-Pro) you are stuck to that configuration you initially purchased. There is no option to add more memory later. Hence, should you encounter a situation where more memory is needed, you will be out of luck and stuck.

So, should the situation be where you are unsure, always go higher when able to. After all, no memory amount is ever wasted.

OK, I respect your opinion, but I see it differently. I suppose others can consider both points of view, and make their own decisions.

Yes, I agree memory is not upgradable, but the cost of additional RAM rises exponentially, with diminishing returns. There come a point when the additional cost yields very little gain (to a particular individual). Also, spending a lot more now means one may be less able (or willing) to upgrade sooner in the future, thus forgoing other benefits of an earlier upgrade.

In this case, going from a 32GB M1 Pro MBP to one with 64GB is effectively a $600 (or more) increase (because it forces getting extra GPU cores, which are of no benefit for LR and PS), which is not trivial for many people. If I am going to spend $600, I would like to know what actual benefit I get, rather than get it just in case. Also, I dispute the notion of "out of luck and stuck," as if the machine will no longer run adequately with less RAM. It just won't run quite as fast.

 

[MacGizmo]

In this case, going from a 32GB M1 Pro MBP to one with 64GB is effectively a $600 (or more) increase (because it forces getting extra GPU cores, which are of no benefit for LR and PS)...

The short Answer:​

How much RAM someone should get is just so subjective and depends on many factors, not the least of which is how someone uses a particular piece of software. In the case of Photoshop; photographers who mainly focus on color correction and touchups won't see much benefit going from 32GB to 64GB of RAM. But designers/photographers who "build" images using tons of layers, run lots of filters, etc. will absolutely see benefits.

In the end, there is no straight right or wrong answer for the OP's use case. Though I will say this, if he's keeping these Macs for 6-10 years as he says, the cost of 64GB RAM upgrade is trivial. Even if kept for 7 years (84 months), a $600 upgrade comes out to around $7 per month. I'm sure he'll cover that cost before he finishes his first cup of coffee on the first day of each month.

In reply to your comment:​

I don't use LightRoom, so I defer to you and everyone else with regard to how it runs. But Photoshop uses the GPU for screen redraws... having more GPU absolutely has a benefit in Photoshop, as does more RAM. I'm also in the camp of "if you have money to upgrade, spend it on RAM (not storage)" because you can add storage externally, you can't add RAM.

I work on 1-2GB Photoshop files with dozens upon dozens (even hundreds) of layers, along with having InDesign, Illustrator and Acrobat open. I've gone years with 32GB of RAM in Intel-based Macs. If I were to put a word to it, I would say it was "adequate" for most work, however, working on an Intel Mac with 64GB of RAM was MUCH more "fluid." If I were going to buy an Intel Mac, it would definitely be 64GB of RAM.

Here's the tough part, I recently upgraded the Intel-based MacBook Pro 16" with Core-i9 processor and 64 GB RAM (I forgot the video card I had in it, but it was the highest upgrade available at the time), to a Mac Studio with M1Max and 64GB of RAM.

In my opinion, it's still too early/difficult to tell where the massive performance gains are coming from for me (in comparison to Intel Macs) with regard to Apple Silicon-based Macs. Using Photoshop and Illustrator (which ran like a slug on Intel Macs with complicated vector art) is lightning fast now. I've used an M1 processor Mac with 32GB RAM and it was already like night & day compared to the Intel, but the M1Max w/64GB RAM is almost indescribably faster. I don't know if it's JUST the M1Max and faster SSD, or JUST the RAM, or a combination of both. Either way, my workflow has seen a very obvious benefit from having more RAM (along with the much faster processor).

In all cases, I run a fairly clean system. I don't run a ton of menubar apps, background apps, system extensions, or frivolous utilities. I believe that can make a big difference as well.

 

[OSXphoto]

Yes I could afford it. Since turning pro photog however, spending money on Apple changed from “like to have” to “needed for the business”.
32GB may give me 5 years of use vs 7 for 64GB, or 6 vs 8. That could be 35-40% more years at 20% more cost.

Unless of course 32GB will get me to 9 years problem free, or the unit gets broken or lost after 3 years. Ughhh.

If the M1 pro could be fitted with 64GB it would be “only €460” but I need to step up to M1 max to get 64GB.

But I think I will stretch to 64GB. It’s tax deductible and most of all it will make sure I won’t look back on my purchase.

Thanks all for your thoughts!

 

[OSXphoto]

Oops, crossposted against macGizmo and wilberforce’s last replies. Lots of great info there. Thanks a lot. I’ll stick with my decision to get 64GB Max. Thanks again.

 

[jav6454]

OK, I respect your opinion, but I see it differently. I suppose others can consider both points of view, and make their own decisions.

Yes, I agree memory is not upgradable, but the cost of additional RAM rises exponentially, with diminishing returns. There come a point when the additional cost yields very little gain (to a particular individual). Also, spending a lot more now means one may be less able (or willing) to upgrade sooner in the future, thus forgoing other benefits of an earlier upgrade.

In this case, going from a 32GB M1 Pro MBP to one with 64GB is effectively a $600 (or more) increase (because it forces getting extra GPU cores, which are of no benefit for LR and PS), which is not trivial for many people. If I am going to spend $600, I would like to know what actual benefit I get, rather than get it just in case. Also, I dispute the notion of "out of luck and stuck," as if the machine will no longer run adequately with less RAM. It just won't run quite as fast.

Diminishing returns? How? I fail to see how more memory grants reduced returns.

 

[jav6454]

Yes I could afford it. Since turning pro photog however, spending money on Apple changed from “like to have” to “needed for the business”.
32GB may give me 5 years of use vs 7 for 64GB, or 6 vs 8. That could be 35-40% more years at 20% more cost.

Unless of course 32GB will get me to 9 years problem free, or the unit gets broken or lost after 3 years. Ughhh.

If the M1 pro could be fitted with 64GB it would be “only €460” but I need to step up to M1 max to get 64GB.

But I think I will stretch to 64GB. It’s tax deductible and most of all it will make sure I won’t look back on my purchase.

Thanks all for your thoughts!

I am green with envy considering the memory you selected.

 

[OSXphoto]

I am green with envy considering the memory you selected.

I’m sorry to hear that. I certainly didn’t mean to cause that. Thank you for contributing nonetheless.
Please do keep in mind that for a photographer, a suitable laptop computer is a vital business asset, necessary to generate income. I don’t think I would spend this kind of money on a private unit.

 

[w5jck]

Yes I’ve watched his videos. However he is testing current MacBooks with current software, which is of course all that can be tested.
But consider this: in 2013 I was running a now legacy Lightroom 5 standalone version and my photos just flied across the display, only 6 GB or so used. Now in 2022 with the same machine and the latest Lr Classic, 16GB can be so tight that the machine slows down significantly. And it already started to do so in 2021 and 2020. I work with large 200000+ image catalogs.
Thus, the memory usage of Lr has more than doubled in 7-9 years.
So If we need about 16-24GB in 2022, we could need 32-48GB in 2029. Sometime along this timeline I could wish for 64GB. Or maybe not. That is the question.
For Lr alone, I would get 32GB. But I’m curious what other RAM hungry apps people use.

On my MacBook Air M1 with 16GB RAM and 1 TB SSD, I use Lightroom Classic CC and Photoshop concurrently quite often, and usually with Mail, and other apps open too. I rarely have issues as long as I am careful not to overload LR collections and collection sets with too many photos. The more photos therein, the more strain it causes. I do a lot of time lapse and astrophotography wherein I shoot upwards of 1,000 photos or more in an evening. A collection/collection set can easily handle a few thousand photos without issue, but if you get up to several thousand, say 10,000 to 15,000, in a collection/collection set then it can slow down quite a bit. (I’m using 24MP RAW files.)

I recently spent 18 nights photographing for meteors and shot at least 1,000 photos each night, which I placed into a separate collection for each night, but I placed those collections within a single collection set. Everything went well until about the 15th collection was added, then the system slowed way down. At that point there was likely 15,000 photos in the set. I then separated out a few of the latest collections into a new collection set and everything was back to normal and high speed. Adobe is bloated, has been since I started using PS back in the 1980s, probably always will be. Once you learn what causes it to slow down, that is, learn its limits, and avoid or circumvent them, it works fine with a M1 and 16GB RAM. I really have to push it hard though to get it to start slowing down.

I would have thought Adobe would only use the current collection as far as RAM goes, but apparently the idiots at Adobe are using the entire collection set. Just one of many totally stupid things Adobe does…

 

[gradi]

Here is an excellent, easy to understand, practical new video:

Memory Pressure and How Your Mac Uses Memory

I have watched many of this guy's excellent videos with his tutorials on various aspects of MacOS, Mac apps, etc. over the last few months. He does it all in a calm voice, well organized, not lots of chit-chat, etc. Recommended.

 

[jav6454]

I’m sorry to hear that. I certainly didn’t mean to cause that. Thank you for contributing nonetheless.
Please do keep in mind that for a photographer, a suitable laptop computer is a vital business asset, necessary to generate income. I don’t think I would spend this kind of money on a private unit.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s great you found the Mac for you. I got one would love to have that much memory.

 

[OSXphoto]

On my MacBook Air M1 with 16GB RAM and 1 TB SSD, I use Lightroom Classic CC and Photoshop concurrently quite often, and usually with Mail, and other apps open too. I rarely have issues as long as I am careful not to overload LR collections and collection sets with too many photos. The more photos therein, the more strain it causes. I do a lot of time lapse and astrophotography wherein I shoot upwards of 1,000 photos or more in an evening. A collection/collection set can easily handle a few thousand photos without issue, but if you get up to several thousand, say 10,000 to 15,000, in a collection/collection set then it can slow down quite a bit. (I’m using 24MP RAW files.)

I recently spent 18 nights photographing for meteors and shot at least 1,000 photos each night, which I placed into a separate collection for each night, but I placed those collections within a single collection set. Everything went well until about the 15th collection was added, then the system slowed way down. At that point there was likely 15,000 photos in the set. I then separated out a few of the latest collections into a new collection set and everything was back to normal and high speed. Adobe is bloated, has been since I started using PS back in the 1980s, probably always will be. Once you learn what causes it to slow down, that is, learn its limits, and avoid or circumvent them, it works fine with a M1 and 16GB RAM. I really have to push it hard though to get it to start slowing down.

I would have thought Adobe would only use the current collection as far as RAM goes, but apparently the idiots at Adobe are using the entire collection set. Just one of many totally stupid things Adobe does…

Thank you for sharing this. Very very interesting. My slowest catalog holds about 150,000 images and I use about 40 smart collections to keep track of which photos need processing. It’s a well thought out cascaded systematic approach. So I have smart collections for “photos unprocessed”, “picks ready”, “keywords ready”, “ratings ready”, “edits ready” and then its siblings “to do picks”, to do ratings”, etc etc. There can easily be 40,000 images in some of those smart collections.
I am currently travelling the UK so I can’t test anything now, but I have noticed many times that when I create an all new catalog and import a couple 1000 images, Lr classic is quite responsive.
So as soon as I get home I will experiment a bit with these collections. Will report back.

 

[ADGrant]

Check out videos by ArtisRight, if you have not already done so. He has many thoughtful comparisons, using LR and PS. However, he tends to compare rather extreme use cases, so bear in mind the context in which he is comparing. It depends on how much you want to spend for a few minutes saved when exporting 1000 photos, for example. It's not as if less RAM won't run, it just runs a little slower for intense workloads

But the OP is a professional photographer so time is money.

 

[OSXphoto]

Here is an excellent, easy to understand, practical new video:

Memory Pressure and How Your Mac Uses Memory

I have watched many of this guy's excellent videos with his tutorials on various aspects of MacOS, Mac apps, etc. over the last few months. He does it all in a calm voice, well organized, not lots of chit-chat, etc. Recommended.

Thank you for that video. It made me better understand some things I thought I already knew.

 

[OSXphoto]

But the OP is a professional photographer so time is money.

Thanks 🙏. But there is some merit in what @wilberforce said. For my work I don’t daily use the extreme use cases artisright discusses. Occasionally, yes. But saving a couple of minutes on exporting a 100 JPEG’s for a client (which in fact I do daily) isn't substantial, I can do other things while the export runs. Being able to work fluently on a multilayered PS file OTOH is quite essential, because a slow computer will eat away my patience and affect joy of working. Very important if doing it every day.
So when watching the videos I see some aspects that are important to me while other things are not.

 

[gradi]

Yes, you have got it right. There are many useful videos and articles out there. They provide lots of good info. But, one must engage one's brain to figure out what is directly comparable to what one does. It is going to be extremely rare to find a video where the person does EXACTLY the same thing you do with EXACTLY the same priorities, constraints, desires, annoyances, etc. Therefore we must use the various info to figure out what info is useful to us, make reasonable extrapolations, and so on.