Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Digital Photography

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Aug 11, 2013, 05:14 PM   #1
alexxk
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
New Macbook or just add more RAM to edit RAW files.

Hello all!!

I have a 2011 Macbook Pro 13 Intel Core i5 Sandy Bridge 2.4 GHZ with 4 GB Ram an upgraded HD Momentus XT Hybrid Drive

Now.. with this config I'm having a hard time editing photos on Aperture, Lightroom and Photoshop specially when messing with RAW files and multiple layers.

Adding RAm up to 16GB will help or should I sell it and get a new Macbook Pro.. probably the new one coming with the HD5000 and 8GB Ram? How much should I ask for if selling is good idea?

Help appreciated!!
alexxk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2013, 06:09 PM   #2
ocabj
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexxk View Post
Hello all!!

I have a 2011 Macbook Pro 13 Intel Core i5 Sandy Bridge 2.4 GHZ with 4 GB Ram an upgraded HD Momentus XT Hybrid Drive

Now.. with this config I'm having a hard time editing photos on Aperture, Lightroom and Photoshop specially when messing with RAW files and multiple layers.

Adding RAm up to 16GB will help or should I sell it and get a new Macbook Pro.. probably the new one coming with the HD5000 and 8GB Ram? How much should I ask for if selling is good idea?

Help appreciated!!
Just upgrade the RAM. 4GB is pretty low. You'll be swapping to disk like crazy.

8GB is doable and I used to edit on a 2009 MBP with 8GB.

16GB is ideal. I can have LR5, Photoshop CS6, and Premiere CS6 up with files loaded and not be using swap space.
ocabj is online now   2 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2013, 10:37 PM   #3
fa8362
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Get more RAM.
fa8362 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2013, 11:19 PM   #4
The Mad Kiwi
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: In Hell
Definitely need more ram, get 16GB.
The Mad Kiwi is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2013, 11:55 PM   #5
martinX
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
I remember reading a set of tests that showed that the best bang for the buck for PS CS5.5 (i think that's the version) was 16 GB of RAM for the tests being run. 24 GB was even better, but the improvement wasn't as great.

There's also this:
But with 16GB instead of 8GB, the test time is almost cut in half with CS5 set to use 75% of system memory, and cut by a whopping 72% when set to use 90% of system memory!
(from http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/...6GB--news.html )

That's a pretty good indication of where the bottleneck is.
martinX is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2013, 01:00 AM   #6
ChrisA
macrumors G4
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Redondo Beach, California
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexxk View Post
Hello all!!

I have a 2011 Macbook Pro 13 Intel Core i5 Sandy Bridge 2.4 GHZ with 4 GB Ram an upgraded HD Momentus XT Hybrid Drive

Now.. with this config I'm having a hard time editing photos on Aperture, Lightroom and Photoshop specially when messing with RAW files and multiple layers.....
I'd rather have the older computer with 16MB than a newer one with only 8GB.
The more RAM the better

4GB is not nearly enough for what you are doing.
ChrisA is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2013, 04:43 AM   #7
throttlemeister
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Netherlands
I'd say upgrade ram to 16GB and consider going full ssd.
__________________
Macbook Pro 2.93 | 8GB | 120GB OWC Extreme Pro + 320GB/7200rpm | 24" LED Cinema Screen
Macbook Pro Retina 2.7 | 16GB | 512MB Flash | 1TB Crucial SSD external over Thunderbolt
throttlemeister is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2013, 10:55 AM   #8
Mike in Kansas
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Metro Kansas City
Just like everyone else says, more RAM should fix it immensely. I have a 2008 iMac and use Aperture frequently. It had 4GB which meant it continuously wrote to disk. I eventually upgraded it to 6GB (max for this machine) and even though that helped, I still page out when using brushes, sharpen, and/or zoom to 100% on an image with a lot of edits. 8GB would be the bare minimum you'd be able to get by with.

I also have 2012 and 2013 MBAs, both with 8GB. I don't recall ever paging out on them when using Aperture.
__________________
13" 2012 MBA/i7/8GB/256GB
24" 2008 iMac/2.8GHz/6GB/240GB SSD & 2TB FW800 HDD "Fused"
2GB TC; ATV 3; 32GB iPad 4; iPhone 5
Left Nikon for Fuji X-E1, Fujinon 18-55mm OIS, 55-200mm OIS, 27mm f/2.8
Mike in Kansas is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2013, 11:46 AM   #9
tgara
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Delta Quadrant
As others have said, more RAM will help.

But another thing to consider is Graphics Processing Unit, or GPU. This chip has taken on increased significance in recent years, especially since digital photography and video work has resulted in very large files that contain lots of data. Some commentators have said that for photography, the GPU is more important than the CPU.

My advice would be to increase the amount of RAM you have in your current machine, and when the time comes to look at a new machine, consider carefully the GPU options and sizes. If you intend to do much photography or video work, get the machine with the best and largest GPU you can afford.
__________________
27 Inch iMac i5 (Mid-2010), 12 GB RAM; 11 Inch MacBook Air; iPad Air; iPhone 5s
tgara is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2013, 12:21 PM   #10
Menge
macrumors 6502a
 
Menge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Brazil
When editing images (Lightroom), it is important to have enough RAM. If you already have enough RAM (I'd recommend 8GB), then CPU is your next bottleneck. Adding more RAM is irrelevant if you won't occupy it. Usually Lightroom doesn't need over 8GB.

Disk speed is almost irrelevant (I tested by upgrading a computer with 16GB of RAM from a HD to an SSD and the difference in speed is neglectable).

You can check in Activity Monitor if you're using up all your RAM. If you have plenty of free RAM, then you need a CPU upgrade (which means buy a new computer). But if you're consuming all your RAM, then get more and see how that feels for you. I really recommend 8GB. I have 16GB and have yet to actually use over 8GB for editing photos.
__________________
Menge - 2011 2.3GHz 13" MBP - 16GB iPhone 5 - 32GB iPad WiFi+4G - 8GB iPod Nano - AEBS
Menge is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2013, 12:33 PM   #11
ocabj
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menge View Post
When editing images (Lightroom), it is important to have enough RAM. If you already have enough RAM (I'd recommend 8GB), then CPU is your next bottleneck. Adding more RAM is irrelevant if you won't occupy it. Usually Lightroom doesn't need over 8GB.

Disk speed is almost irrelevant (I tested by upgrading a computer with 16GB of RAM from a HD to an SSD and the difference in speed is neglectable).
Actually, HD speed even with 8GB of RAM does make a difference. I noticed this back in the LR3 days. It seems like LR became more disk I/O intensive starting in LR3 when it comes to saving history on actions. So if you do things like a lot of spot heals, LR will write out to disk quickly as opposed to queuing up the changes in memory and writing it out later on.

I wrote about it a few years back: http://www.ocabj.net/slow-lightroom-...olved-disk-io/
ocabj is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2013, 03:43 PM   #12
Menge
macrumors 6502a
 
Menge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Brazil
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocabj View Post
Actually, HD speed even with 8GB of RAM does make a difference. I noticed this back in the LR3 days. It seems like LR became more disk I/O intensive starting in LR3 when it comes to saving history on actions. So if you do things like a lot of spot heals, LR will write out to disk quickly as opposed to queuing up the changes in memory and writing it out later on.

I wrote about it a few years back: http://www.ocabj.net/slow-lightroom-...olved-disk-io/
Well, like I said before: I just upgraded from a regular laptop HD to a Crucial M4 SSD hoping I would get a big performance boost in Lightroom file loading. I didn't. Most of the time is spent waiting for the computer to finish rendering the large RAW files... The disk gets pegged for a microsecond, and from then on, it's all CPU spikes. So no: modern disk speed is not the bottleneck in editing RAW files. CPU is, if you have enough RAM to fit the image.

And action history (undo history) is not saved to disk. They're not persistent. They're kept in RAM and are, by definition, very small. The way Lightroom works is all it keeps on disk is the original file and the cumulative changes made to that file (and those are small, look at the size of a LR catalog file). It doesn't save a file history. The undo history is just for your benefit while you're in your current edit session. That's RAM only.
__________________
Menge - 2011 2.3GHz 13" MBP - 16GB iPhone 5 - 32GB iPad WiFi+4G - 8GB iPod Nano - AEBS
Menge is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2013, 04:59 PM   #13
throttlemeister
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menge View Post
When editing images (Lightroom), it is important to have enough RAM. If you already have enough RAM (I'd recommend 8GB), then CPU is your next bottleneck. Adding more RAM is irrelevant if you won't occupy it. Usually Lightroom doesn't need over 8GB.

Disk speed is almost irrelevant (I tested by upgrading a computer with 16GB of RAM from a HD to an SSD and the difference in speed is neglectable).

You can check in Activity Monitor if you're using up all your RAM. If you have plenty of free RAM, then you need a CPU upgrade (which means buy a new computer). But if you're consuming all your RAM, then get more and see how that feels for you. I really recommend 8GB. I have 16GB and have yet to actually use over 8GB for editing photos.
I have 16gb and Lightroom regularly uses all of it. As in only a few hundred meg free. Particularly when using lots of brushes. Also, exporting will happen in memory if you have it available.
__________________
Macbook Pro 2.93 | 8GB | 120GB OWC Extreme Pro + 320GB/7200rpm | 24" LED Cinema Screen
Macbook Pro Retina 2.7 | 16GB | 512MB Flash | 1TB Crucial SSD external over Thunderbolt
throttlemeister is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2013, 06:30 PM   #14
jeffy.dee-lux
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: montreal
I finally stepped up to Aperture this year to make the most of shooting in RAW, only to find that my early 2011 15" MBP was having a terrible time of it. At first I thought it was because all these RAW photos were filling up my HD, but I fixed that issue by putting most of my library onto an externa HD. MEanwhile I was getting tons of Page Outs. Sure enough, I stepped up from 4GB to 16GB, and now it's like a brand new computer. I highly recommend the RAM!
jeffy.dee-lux is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2013, 10:57 AM   #15
tgara
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Delta Quadrant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menge View Post
Well, like I said before: I just upgraded from a regular laptop HD to a Crucial M4 SSD hoping I would get a big performance boost in Lightroom file loading. I didn't. Most of the time is spent waiting for the computer to finish rendering the large RAW files... The disk gets pegged for a microsecond, and from then on, it's all CPU spikes. So no: modern disk speed is not the bottleneck in editing RAW files. CPU is, if you have enough RAM to fit the image.
Aperture is GPU intensive, as well as CPU. Most technically inclined photographers opt for the best GPU they can get.
__________________
27 Inch iMac i5 (Mid-2010), 12 GB RAM; 11 Inch MacBook Air; iPad Air; iPhone 5s
tgara is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2013, 02:27 PM   #16
Menge
macrumors 6502a
 
Menge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Brazil
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgara View Post
Aperture is GPU intensive, as well as CPU. Most technically inclined photographers opt for the best GPU they can get.
Nope it is not. Lightroom makes absolutely no specific use of the GPU according to Adobe's engineers at the Adobe support forums. They claim its rendering pipeline is too long to be implemented for a GPU. Don't confuse with Photoshop which does make use of the GPU for many tasks.

So basically Lightroom's bottlenecks are: RAM, CPU, Disk.
__________________
Menge - 2011 2.3GHz 13" MBP - 16GB iPhone 5 - 32GB iPad WiFi+4G - 8GB iPod Nano - AEBS
Menge is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2013, 03:11 PM   #17
alexxk
Thread Starter
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
All answers much appreciated.. thanks ALL!!

I will upgrade my macbook with 16GB RAM from Amazon..

alexxk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2013, 04:31 PM   #18
Laird Knox
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexxk View Post
All answers much appreciated.. thanks ALL!!

I will upgrade my macbook with 16GB RAM from Amazon..

I have the same MacBook. It has no trouble with 36MP files in LR and PS. You will be happy with the upgrade.
Laird Knox is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 11:02 AM   #19
tgara
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Delta Quadrant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menge View Post
Nope it is not. Lightroom makes absolutely no specific use of the GPU according to Adobe's engineers at the Adobe support forums. They claim its rendering pipeline is too long to be implemented for a GPU. Don't confuse with Photoshop which does make use of the GPU for many tasks.

So basically Lightroom's bottlenecks are: RAM, CPU, Disk.
I was referring to Aperture, but it's good to know about the GPU bit on Lightroom and Photoshop. Thanks for this.
__________________
27 Inch iMac i5 (Mid-2010), 12 GB RAM; 11 Inch MacBook Air; iPad Air; iPhone 5s
tgara is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 11:17 AM   #20
Menge
macrumors 6502a
 
Menge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Brazil
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgara View Post
I was referring to Aperture, but it's good to know about the GPU bit on Lightroom and Photoshop. Thanks for this.
Crap sorry. Was too entrenched in the "Lightroom" word. I know nothing of Aperture :P
__________________
Menge - 2011 2.3GHz 13" MBP - 16GB iPhone 5 - 32GB iPad WiFi+4G - 8GB iPod Nano - AEBS
Menge is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 12:10 PM   #21
Eaon
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Calgary, AB
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgara View Post
Aperture is GPU intensive, as well as CPU. Most technically inclined photographers opt for the best GPU they can get.
I was just thinking about that the other day, wondering if GPU was used at all by Aperture, and it got me to thinking about my settings. Not sure where the OP's system is in the history of this setting, but, check out this page (random Google) on setting your system to the "better" GPU. At some point back in history I had set mine to better battery life. I'm sure it was a reasonable thought I had back then. But I've set it back to higher performance, and, while I haven't done any benchmarking, maybe it's just psychosomatic, but Aperture does seem to sit at the "loading" state of RAW files for less time now that I've made the change.

Though I heartily agree that RAM is always a worthwhile upgrade as well.
Eaon is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2013, 11:10 PM   #22
adversus
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Portland, OR
Send a message via ICQ to adversus Send a message via AIM to adversus Send a message via MSN to adversus Send a message via Yahoo to adversus Send a message via Skype™ to adversus
Up to 16GB of RAM and replace the mechanical drive with an SSD. Then cry tears of joy when you open Aperture for the first time.

I use my MBP only for backups of RAW files in the field and rarely do mobile processing, but when I upgraded my Mac Pro to 32GB of RAM and an SSD for my Aperture libraries, I nearly wet myself at how fast it runs now.
__________________
I own stuff.
adversus is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Digital Photography

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RAW files in IPhoto padjb MacBook Pro 1 Oct 25, 2013 03:46 PM
Add 4GB RAM to my MacBook? digitalove MacBook Air 3 Jun 16, 2013 04:01 PM
Any way to retrieve RAW files? JazzyK Mac Basics and Help 1 Feb 8, 2013 10:08 AM
Will I be able to download Mountain Lion if I add more RAM to my 2008 MacBook ReneRamirez1 MacBook 3 Feb 7, 2013 05:33 PM
Macbook Pro 5,5 from 2009 add RAM? jvaska MacBook Pro 5 Dec 29, 2012 01:06 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:37 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC