Upgrade to M4Pro or M4 with more RAM

Hi,

IF I were you, I would choose Mac Mini M4, 32GB Ram, 1TB HD since Lightroom and 4K editor eat up RAM.

This article explains the high RAM usage better than I can.

Why Macs Use Lots Of RAM

Hey there! I’m a Mac mini m2 user and I’ve been using the apps you mentioned. First off, let me tell you that RAM is the most crucial thing for a Mac mini. I had the 8GB version, and it worked fine, but I had a few issues. So, I upgraded to the 16GB version. The thing is, since these things use Apple Silicon, everything is tightly integrated, and you can’t change the RAM or add more storage. The apps you mentioned really need the RAM, like the difference between the m4 and m4 Pro is barely noticeable and won’t make a big difference in your work, like maybe a minute or so when processing a large file.

If you want to save money without compromising performance you should go with the 256 GB model and buy a cheap 1 TB USB 3.0 SSD for around £60 onto which you can put all your large files.

I would even go so far as to say the basic M4 at £599 would probably be perfectly OK.

People treat RAM like those folk who automatically put salt on their meals without first checking whether it's already salty enough!

With both ON1 PhotoRAW and Lightroom, they keep large caches, settings, and preview data on your internal drive located in the hidden User Library folder in ApplicationSupport. And the just continue to grow the longer you use the apps. And most of that has no way available to be relocated any where.

Example, my ON1 folder in ApplicationSupport is 67 GB!! This was after I flushed one of the largest folders in it a couple months ago. The impact that has is that ON1 may need to regenerate some of the previews as you browse the image folders. As I recall when I had used Lightroom and Photoshop, they used up equally prodigious amounts of internal drive space.

I currently have a 512GB with is about 1/2 full even with that but I keep all of my data on external drives including music, video files and iMovies projects including all my photography stuff that I can. I have very little in terms of data on my internal.

So, you could get a super large internal drive or every once in a while perform some maintenance and just accept some stuff may take a little longer to load.

Rheex wrote:

Yes indeed, I have all my large files on external ssd attached, but I think 256gb is really not enough if you use your desktop everyday for all kinds of tasks and works.

I agree 100%

As for RAM, for video I definitely agree that base is enough, even at 4K if it'S simple editing, but large libraries of 60 megapixel photos just need a lot of memory to just brows through them with decent quality. I am checking the Activity Monitor 10-14GB of RAM!

I agree 100% It's always wiser to future proof your purchase now, then it is to hold back and be unhappy.

My point is that too many people are preoccupied by specifications.

When I bought my 2017 iMac I "knew" that the 8 GB RAM was inadequate and was ready to order another 8 GB from Crucial.

However, I hung back and Surprise! Surprise! I discovered that the machine was perfectly happy editing 1080p and 4K videos in Final Cut Pro and DaVinci Resolve and it still flies along to this day.

A big argument for getting the highest spec you can is to "future-proof" your Mac.

This might have made sense 20 years ago when progress was rapid and computers were doubling their speed every year or so but now improvements come more slowly and if a machine is fine today it probably will be for the next decade. In any case, you will probably want a newer Mac long before then.

When I checked at > Mac - Which Mac is best for me? - Apple

Based on Editing Photos, Displays, etc... The top Choice came back with a Mac mini M4 Pro.

Pro.

Personally, as a user of ON1 PhotoRAW, I would go with the M4 Pro. Having more GPU cores is a very big plus. Also, more CPU cores will help with speeding up many of their AI based processes.

Also, while I don't do a whole lot of video, video processing has always been a case of the more CPU cores you have the better. Here again, the Pro wins out.

I bought the 256 GB M2 (8 GB RAM) over a year ago and almost immediately turned it into a 1 TB M2.

I simply attached a cheap (£60) USB 3.0 1 TB SSD I had lying around, installed Sonoma on it and used it as the boot drive. Dead quick and easy.

BUT the performance from a USB 3.0 connected SSD must be appalling as it's less than a quarter as fast as the internal.

WRONG! The SSD has little to do with the speed of a computer . . . that is the work of the CPU etc.

On bench tests and actual 4K video editing, rendering and exporting, the speed of this combination is identical (within 1%) of using the internal Mac SSD.

The result is that all the wear and tear has been on the cheap external and the internal is virtually unused.

Of course if you want to copy a massive file, that will take 4 times longer but how often do you do that?

Regarding RAM, Mac computers are designed to use most of the RAM all the time, whether you are doing the simplest of tasks or the most complex.

So if Activity Monitor says you are using over 75% of your RAM it does not mean you need more RAM . . . if you had 128 GB RAM it would probably show for those same tasks that most of the RAM was being used.

You say that up to 14 GB RAM can be used just browsing. Check what it is when you are working intensively and you will probably find little difference.

Many people have not tried what I suggested and are speaking theoretically.

Anyway it's your money and your choice.

One thing you will learn is that you can't go by other people's opinions. One person will say camera x has a brilliant lens whilst another will say it's rubbish. We all have different standards and criteria.

Apparently Apple has a 14 day cooling off period so you can buy what you think should be OK and if it isn't you can return it.