What Carlson is reporting is consistent with my experience. On MAC 32gb of RAM is all that is needed for photoshop.
How Much Memory (RAM)?
- Thread starter Whiskeyman
- Start date
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).
The new Macs with unified memory actually work faster than traditional memory setups. They work much faster at half the memory recommendations. 32 gigs is all you would ever need for photo editing with a Studio Mac but of course I‘ll always recommend getting as much as you can afford whether is a Mac or windows machine.
My perception is Macs will run better with more memory - often double the memory on a Windows machine. So I'd be thinking 64 GB as the lowest acceptable, and 128 GB for better performance and life.
With a Windows PC, 64 GB should be plenty.
Your perception is inconsistent with comments by Ralph, Carlson and myself as well as test results reported by Pugetbench for Photoshop, which indicates there are no measured performance improvements with Photoshop with memory above 32gb.
I was informed by several experienced MAC users that when Apple started designing and making its own chips (M chips, currently 1-3) there were substantial changes that resulted in major improvements. With those chips Lightroom and Photoshop operates well with even the base level M1. 2 or 3 chips and you do not need to buy anything extra.
I do not hold myself out as a computer expert. I only know is I recently switched to MAC after a lifetime of PC usage. I bought the entry level Mac Studio M2 which has only 32gb of
RAM. I am now running a dual screen setup with a 5k Mac Studio and my previously-owned 4k Dell. I have seen a huge improvement in performance compared to my high end Razer top of the line I9 machine.
TurtleCat
Well-known member
Generally the inverse is true.
TurtleCat
Well-known member
Whether you like him or not, Thom Hogan has a very good dissertation on the right Mac to select for photography: https://www.bythom.com/reviews--books/recommended-mac-hardware.html
Not true Eric. Just the opposite with the new Apple processors
I stand corrected - as a PC user I'm not current in the Mac world and it sounds like my comments reflect older Macs. That's a relatively recent change with the Mac reflecting the newer chips.
Replytoken
Well-known member
Both PS and LRC rely on graphics cards to do more and more heavy lifting these days, so it is important, probably more so in the Windows world than in the Mac due to how memory is used. If you lie to use some of the newer noise reduction programs, they rely very heavily on graphics cards. I cannot give specific advice on how much memory to put in a Mac, but in a windows machine, both RAM and GPU pay important parts, as does the primary internal drive and its bus technology.
--Ken
TurtleCat
Well-known member
Nowadays most popular software uses the Apple silicon GPUs. The benefit is there is no setup and annoyance as there is with most things CUDA.
Replytoken
Well-known member
Correct. I did call out Apple separately, but also called out the need in general so the OP would have a better understanding of the overall need when they spec. out a new machine.
--Ken
Thanks for clarifying this.
This site has been extraordinarily helpful to me in many respects. I have made a lot of wise decisions because of what I learned here.
As a result of this good advice I made the right decision in moving to mac for photo editing and the purchases I made were the right ones for me.
This is a great learning and sharing space and people are very willing to share their knowledge and experience.
sib
New member
Agree on this.
I have a MacBook Pro from late 2021 with the M1 Max SoC and 32GB of RAM - PS & LR have no trouble on raw files from 45MP Nikon bodies.
Nevertheless, when I upgrade, probably in 2025, I'll likely move to 64GB simply because files and software keep getting bigger and I'd like some future-proofing.
One thing to keep in mind is that when you’re planning to configure your CPU/GPU/RAM for a new laptop (or desktop), remember that what will currently work well may be less than acceptable in three to five years. I always buy a configuration that exceeds my needs at the time of purchase because new app functionality will require ever more resources to function acceptably.
Last edited:
I agree with the idea of future-proofing a computer by buying bigger than you need right now. The problem with that view in the MAC world is the price goes up dramatically when you start adding features. A fully specced out Studio gets into 8 grand territory which is a far cry from the base model price of 2 grand. With these steep prices i think it is important to choose wisely when you decide which feature to add and it is sometimes difficult to predict where things might go.
BlackRockArt
Well-known member
Back in 2014, I bought a 27-inch IMAC with 32GB Ram, 500GB SSD, i7-4.0GHz CPU, which served me well into 2024, that configuration cost arond $5500, sadly Apple no longer updates that model, some of the photography & video editing software no longer work with older MacOS, as much as I loved it, I had to sell it.
My PC has 128GB Ram & 8TB NVME drives which costs little over 3G; personally I always cram as much memory as possible.
Oliver
My PC has 128GB Ram & 8TB NVME drives which costs little over 3G; personally I always cram as much memory as possible.
Oliver
You are correct, such decisions are not easy. Determining a future proof configuration at a reasonable price is hard.
sib
New member
Luckily, the steps from 36-->48 and 48-->64GB of RAM are only $200 each now, which is a lot more reasonable than it used to be in Mac-land. And certainly a lot less than we spend on other parts of our hobby (cough cough Nikon OEM batteries!)
joe43
Well-known member
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
Mike, I would like you thoughts on what GPU/video card with RAM you are currently using or would recommend for something like DXO PL Elite with Deep Prime XD noise reduction.
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
Mike, I would like you thoughts on what GPU/video card with RAM you are currently using or would recommend for something like DXO PL Elite with Deep Prime XD noise reduction.
glsmith9823
Member
Part of it depends on the Operating System. Microsoft Windows 10/11 is groat with 32 GB of RAM, however there are 2 other key parts to consider. 1.) How many applications will you have open and using simultaneously, or switching back & forth. (Subset of this is are you working on pictures (jpg or RAW), or are you doing videos? 2.) How much memory is on the video card you use. Now days a video card will handle processing considerably faster than the CPU as it is not taxed with operating system duties.
Not A Speck Of Cereal
Well-known member
I agree that there isn't a pat answer. In addition to the CPU, SSD drive choice is a big factor, as is (especially these days) GPU and video card memory (8GB minimum).
I put 128GB main system memory in my main photo processing computer. Partly this was due to batch processing—if I process hundreds of RAW files to intermediate TIFF files in a single batch, that goes by much quicker with more memory, something that was an over-night process in the past. Just make sure to allocate plenty to the ACR cache (or equivalent), scratch disc assigned to SSDs (NVMe if you can), and write those TIFFs to NVMe as well (even if transferring to NAS after).
But if you don't do a lot of batches, probably 64GB is enough, and you can put the savings into the faster CPU and GPU.
Chris
I put 128GB main system memory in my main photo processing computer. Partly this was due to batch processing—if I process hundreds of RAW files to intermediate TIFF files in a single batch, that goes by much quicker with more memory, something that was an over-night process in the past. Just make sure to allocate plenty to the ACR cache (or equivalent), scratch disc assigned to SSDs (NVMe if you can), and write those TIFFs to NVMe as well (even if transferring to NAS after).
But if you don't do a lot of batches, probably 64GB is enough, and you can put the savings into the faster CPU and GPU.
Chris
macwalter
Active member
I am using an M1 Pro max studio with 64gigs of ram and a 2TB Ssd drive With a Fantom 4tb external hard drive for my work on LRcc and PS. Along with Topaz and Nik 6. I find it to be fast enough but I don’t do video. I do shoot RAW and takes lots of photos. I also have 2 12TB 7200rpm backup drives I only turn on to archive. I wouldn’t mind a better external ssd drive and that is where I will look for greater speed and reliability.
I am running something somewhat similar, mine is M2 studio with 32gb ram.
I got a G Drive pro studio ssd with a bit more than 7 TB in storage capacity. it is advertised as an enterprise level SSD with a five year guarantee. It sold for something like 900 something at B H. I use it for my main drive for processing and storing images and I keep the hard drive on the Mac Studio for other uses. I find the drive is very fast and I have no lag at all in importing, copying or reviewing thumbnails. It is super fast. I previously was using a OWC four-bay RAID 5 drive but found this was much faster. The RAID 5 now serves as my local back[up.
It has heat shielding and a built in fan that seems to operate constantly when in use. it is not obtrusive but you can hear it kind of like an air purifier running in the background.
sheldon
New member
Yes LrC , PS and Topaz Photo AI and... can run under 32 GB. Run Photo AI as a pluigin from LrC and run other programs at the same the memory usage will go way up. I have 32 GB on a WIN10 Pro with 13700k CPU and 3070TI GPU. I am in the process of upgrading to 64 GB. Bottom line, I think 32 GB is near the edge and 64 GB is overkill. Could go to 48 GB, but that really wouldn't make any sense. Should have bought it with 64 GB in the first place. Now the word is "future proof". PS and LrC aren't really using the GPU very much at this point in time
Last edited:
hef19898
Member
When it comes to RAM I have a simple philosophy, akin to engine displacement jokes, the only replacement for a lot of RAM is more RAM. Out of principle, I'd get as much of it as possible / permissible.