How Much Memory (RAM)?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Whiskeyman

Whiskeyman

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I'm considering a new computer for photography endeavors only, and will be using LightRoom Classic and Photoshop, along with many Topaz add-ons such as Denoise, Sharpen, Photo AI and the sort.

One of my big hang ups in making the decision isdeciding how much RAM is should choose. (My options are 32GB, 64GB, 96 GB and 124 GB, each higher amount costing more money.) My two current computers have 32 GB and 64 GB of RAM, and the one with 64GB is considerably faster, but this can be partially attributed to the improved processor speead and increased number of processor cores.

I've looked online and see conflicting reports of how much RAM that the applications I'm using can actually benefit from. Does anyone here have an opinion or advice as to how much RAM is useful for them?
 
Member's gallery
There isn’t a magic formula. Generally the more the merrier but so much depends on your workflow and files and expectations. 32 is fine and 64 would help you with software bloat over time. 128 might be helpful in some situations.

As an example I use PixInsight which is far, far more demanding computer resources than all the photo software out there. I use 64GB and more wouldn’t help me that much as the constraint is CPU.
 
Member's gallery
TurtleCat said:
There isn’t a magic formula. Generally the more the merrier but so much depends on your workflow and files and expectations. 32 is fine and 64 would help you with software bloat over time. 128 might be helpful in some situations.

As an example I use PixInsight which is far, far more demanding computer resources than all the photo software out there. I use 64GB and more wouldn’t help me that much as the constraint is CPU.
Click to expand...
Software bloat? I assume that would be more of a storage issue. Or are you referring to the individual programs becoming larger, codewise?
 
Member's gallery
I have 4 computers that I built myself for running image editing programs. 3 of them have 64gb and the newest one has 128gb of fast DDR5 ram.
My fastest machines have i9 and Ryzen 9 CPUs. I get the biggest speed bump when using the latest NVME PCIE5 drives. NVME PCIe4 is a close second.
I use PhaseOne Capture One and I believe it is the best of the best.
Photoshop is a memory hog and it will take as much memory as you will give it.
I have building machines for over 30 years and the newest CPUs are pretty remarkable!
Many programs still do NOT take advantage of multi-processing.
If you have 100MP sensors, you really need 128gb of DDR5 and faster processors.

Best,
Mike
 
Member's gallery
I use LrC, PS, and Davinci Resolv for basic photo and video editing. No special graphics effects or lots PS layers, etc. or gaming.

My Windoz 11 system works fine for my workflows with 16gb of DDR4 RAM and I've never had memory problems or constraints. Some of the newer Adobe AI tools such as Denoiser might run a bit slower when batch processing several images but its not enough to consider adding more RAM.
 
Member's gallery
Mac makes a big difference with the latest silicone chips.

i am no means an expert here but i recently got the base model studio m2 and it works amazingly well with Lightroom and photoshop. I work with the z9 and shoot raw but do not do video editing. The big deal is hard drive speed not RAM.
 
Member's gallery
Whiskeyman said:
I'm running iMacs, but how much does that really matter? Is the software and/or performance that different, RAM utilization wise, between OSs?
Click to expand...
Somewhat. A native Mac app plus the OS is more efficient with resources but only to a limited extent. Much depends on how the applications are designed and used. Since with a Mac you can’t change your ram (with a few minor exceptions) you should think about your replacement strategy. If you’re keeping the next machine for 5-7 years then buy one with more memory. If you plan to replace in 2-3 then it doesn’t matter nearly as much.

FWIW, the rumor is that the M4 Macs will start rolling out this fall.
 
Member's gallery
Whiskeyman said:
I'm considering a new computer for photography endeavors only, and will be using LightRoom Classic and Photoshop, along with many Topaz add-ons such as Denoise, Sharpen, Photo AI and the sort.

One of my big hang ups in making the decision isdeciding how much RAM is should choose. (My options are 32GB, 64GB, 96 GB and 124 GB, each higher amount costing more money.) My two current computers have 32 GB and 64 GB of RAM, and the one with 64GB is considerably faster, but this can be partially attributed to the improved processor speead and increased number of processor cores.

I've looked online and see conflicting reports of how much RAM that the applications I'm using can actually benefit from. Does anyone here have an opinion or advice as to how much RAM is useful for them?
Click to expand...

Here are the specs on my new Apple:

Apple M3 Max chip with 16‑core CPU, 40‑core GPU, 16‑core Neural Engine
128GB unified memory, 2TB SSD storage

I regularly edit multi-GB video files and 400-600mb TIFFs on Davinci, Premiere, After Effects, and Photoshop, no hangups, crashes and rendering is fast.
 
Member's gallery
Nimi, That is a machine. My grandson does video and recording on his M3. You have 400-600mb TIFFS? Do you have a 100mp sensor?
How do you like Davinci? I hear it is an excellent program.

Thanks,
Mike
 
Member's gallery
NIKONF said:
Nimi, That is a machine. My grandson does video and recording on his M3. You have 400-600mb TIFFS? Do you have a 100mp sensor?
How do you like Davinci? I hear it is an excellent program.

Thanks,
Mike
Click to expand...
Thanks! GFX100 and also panos on the Z9. I actually prefer Adobe Premiere Pro, I only bring it into Davinci when I need to do extensive color grading.
 
Member's gallery
Nimi said:
Here are the specs on my new Apple:

Apple M3 Max chip with 16‑core CPU, 40‑core GPU, 16‑core Neural Engine
128GB unified memory, 2TB SSD storage

I regularly edit multi-GB video files and 400-600mb TIFFs on Davinci, Premiere, After Effects, and Photoshop, no hangups, crashes and rendering is fast.
Click to expand...
That just might be what I want, but just might also be what I can't afford. Is it a Mac Studio? A quick look on Apple.com and I don't even see a M3 Max chip. I'll dig deeper.

I see it's a MacBook Pro. I'm really looking for an iMac or iMac Pro. I may go the Mac Studio route, but if that's what I have to do, it'll be further out on my calendar, as I'll want to add a really good monitor to the mix.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Whiskeyman said:
That just might be what I want, but just might also be what I can't afford. Is it a Mac Studio? A quick look on Apple.com and I don't even see a M3 Max chip. I'll dig deeper.

I see it's a MacBook Pro. I'm really looking for an iMac or iMac Pro. I may go the Mac Studio route, but if that's what I have to do, it'll be further out on my calendar, as I'll want to add a really good monitor to the mix.
Click to expand...
You can go refurb and get a M1 Studio Ultra. Sure it’s a bit less powerful in some ways but it still holds up just fine and would be nicely priced.
 
Member's gallery
Whiskeyman said:
That just might be what I want, but just might also be what I can't afford. Is it a Mac Studio? A quick look on Apple.com and I don't even see a M3 Max chip. I'll dig deeper.

I see it's a MacBook Pro. I'm really looking for an iMac or iMac Pro. I may go the Mac Studio route, but if that's what I have to do, it'll be further out on my calendar, as I'll want to add a really good monitor to the mix.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to figure it out myself. My work has slowly been transitioning to more complex videos and I am thinking about setting up a dedicated editing system, not based on the MacBook. Even two years ago, I'd shoot tethered on a laptop, edit on the flight home and get rough cut to client the next day.
 
Member's gallery
TurtleCat said:
Somewhat. A native Mac app plus the OS is more efficient with resources but only to a limited extent. Much depends on how the applications are designed and used. Since with a Mac you can’t change your ram (with a few minor exceptions) you should think about your replacement strategy. If you’re keeping the next machine for 5-7 years then buy one with more memory. If you plan to replace in 2-3 then it doesn’t matter nearly as much.

FWIW, the rumor is that the M4 Macs will start rolling out this fall.
Click to expand...
I usually keep my computers for a long time. The iMac I'll replace is a 2015 27-inch model with a 3.3 GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5 processor, with 32 GB RAM. However, it is not my primary photo editing computer, which is a 2017 3.4 GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5, with 64 GB RAM and upgraded graphics. The replacement machine will become my primary post processing machine, and the 2015 iMac will be given to a widowed friend of my wife who lives on a limited income. I do have a 14-inch MacBook Pro with M1 chip for on the road, but I just don't want to give up my big screen iMacs.

As you can see, there is plenty of opportunity for processing speed upgrade from what i'm using. I don't really think I need the latest and greatest system, but I'd like one that won't take so long to process, or completely stop working on photos in drop-in applications in Lightroom or Photoshop.
 
Member's gallery
This is a difficult decision. I followed a recommendation I got here at BCG months ago. I used "ArtIsRight," a guy who tests different Apple products with different photo processing software and makes recommendations based on time to complete various tasks. After watching a couple of his YouTube analyses of different setups, I discovered I could spend several hundred less than I thought I needed to spend. He was right.

 
Member's gallery
cchuck said:
This is a difficult decision. I followed a recommendation I got here at BCG months ago. I used "ArtIsRight," a guy who tests different Apple products with different photo processing software and makes recommendations based on time to complete various tasks. After watching a couple of his YouTube analyses of different setups, I discovered I could spend several hundred less than I thought I needed to spend. He was right.

Click to expand...
I "consulted" artisright before I purchased my last MacBook Pro about one year ago. I needed a laptop quickly as I was about to take a photography road trip, and had to make do with what I could find locally before I left. I ended up getting a 14-inch MacBook Pro, one of his no-optimum picks. It serves me well, and far surpasses my iMacs'performance, but with a 14-inch display screen. I know that I could get a really good monitor to connect to my MBP, but I just like having a desktop system to use for most of my postprocessing. While the MBP is good for the road, I don't believe that there's been a single image that I've processed on the MBP that I haven't made adjustments to when got home and put it on a machine with the larger display.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Whiskeyman said:
I'm considering a new computer for photography endeavors only, and will be using LightRoom Classic and Photoshop, along with many Topaz add-ons such as Denoise, Sharpen, Photo AI and the sort.

One of my big hang ups in making the decision isdeciding how much RAM is should choose. (My options are 32GB, 64GB, 96 GB and 124 GB, each higher amount costing more money.) My two current computers have 32 GB and 64 GB of RAM, and the one with 64GB is considerably faster, but this can be partially attributed to the improved processor speead and increased number of processor cores.

I've looked online and see conflicting reports of how much RAM that the applications I'm using can actually benefit from. Does anyone here have an opinion or advice as to how much RAM is useful for them?
Click to expand...
Puget Systems publishes on their website the Photoshop test results from people who have downloaded the test and run it on their computers. Usually have more than 32GB of Ram goes not result in improved performance with Photoshop. Newer computers have a wider memory bus and use faster memory modules which is more of a performance factor than the amount of Ram for the CPU.

What makes a good deal of difference for video editing is the VRAM on the graphics card. Base level GPU boards have 8GB VRAM and the middle ground have 12GB and the top performing ones like the RXT 4090 has 24GB VRAM.

www.pugetsystems.com

PugetBench for Photoshop

PugetBench for Photoshop runs on top of your installed copy of Adobe Photoshop, providing benchmark data directly from the application.
www.pugetsystems.com www.pugetsystems.com
 
Member's gallery
Calson said:
Puget Systems publishes on their website the Photoshop test results from people who have downloaded the test and run it on their computers. Usually have more than 32GB of Ram goes not result in improved performance with Photoshop. Newer computers have a wider memory bus and use faster memory modules which is more of a performance factor than the amount of Ram for the CPU.

What makes a good deal of difference for video editing is the VRAM on the graphics card. Base level GPU boards have 8GB VRAM and the middle ground have 12GB and the top performing ones like the RXT 4090 has 24GB VRAM.

www.pugetsystems.com

PugetBench for Photoshop

PugetBench for Photoshop runs on top of your installed copy of Adobe Photoshop, providing benchmark data directly from the application.
www.pugetsystems.com www.pugetsystems.com
Click to expand...
I'm not looking for video editing performance as of now. Maybe in the future, but for immediate needs, it's just for photo processing.
 
Member's gallery
I faced the same issues a few months ago when I decided to switch from PC to Apple. I initially bought a reconditioned M1 Macbook Pro with 1 tb hard drive for about $1400. It actually worked just fine with Lightroom and PS doing photo editing on RAW files from the Z9. I ended up returning the unit because of unrelated issues. I then bought the base model M2 studio with a 1 tb internal drive. I paid roughly 2 grand for it. I also bought the Mac Studio 5k monitor for about $1400.

I found that this computer and monitor setup worked flawlessly when using the internal drive. For larger storage capacity I ended up getting high speed external SSD thunderbolt drives which greatly sped up image processing and were close to equal in performance with the internal drives. Those higher speed drives are not that expensive.

Prices go up rapidly with MAC computers if you buy towards the high end. You don't need to do that, the base model units work just fine. with either macbook pro or mac studio. using M2 or M3. Both the Macbook Pro and the Mac Studio are already set up with the ability to handle higher resolution and multiple monitors.

All of this applies to photo editing. I don't do any significant video procesing and my opinion might be different if I had to go that route. I also don't work with medium format gear so I also don't know if that will make a difference.
 
Member's gallery
Whiskeyman said:
I'm running iMacs, but how much does that really matter? Is the software and/or performance that different, RAM utilization wise, between OSs?
Click to expand...
Mac and Windows use RAM differently. I do not use Macs but understand that they should probably have 128GB of RAM. Adobe publishes guidelines which you should double as Adobe is trying to lure you in.
 
Member's gallery
128gb RAM is extremely expensive in Mac and it is not even available in the lower level models. I think I only have 32gb on my Mac Studio m2 and LR and PHOTOSHOP work amazingly well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top