Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Orizence

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Nov 10, 2014
343
110
Hey everyone. I ordered a 16GB/256 last night but Im worried I ordered the wrong one. I mostly do internet browsing, email, listen to FLACs, and edit photos in DxO Photolab 6.

I'm not worried about the SSD as I keep my home folder on a external 1TB SSD. But im worried 16GB is not enough ram anymore, is it? I would like to keep this machine for a while (hopefully last as long as my 2012 Mac Mini), is 24GB the better choice?
 

HobeSoundDarryl

macrumors G5
More RAM is almost always a good decision... especially if- as you say- you are intending to keep it for upwards of 10 years. We used to have the ability to add more if we needed it but now we have to anticipate all possibilities up front and buy for the future... OR plan to toss the whole machine and buy a replacement.

However, if you do NOT anticipate doing any more with it than the things you listed over that entire 10-year span, 16GB should be plenty of RAM. It's only where you MIGHT go with your computing in the future that may make a case for 24GB today.

The alternative is to NOT assume 10+ years and be ready to toss & replace sooner than your last Mac experience.
 

sam_dean

Suspended
Sep 9, 2022
1,262
1,091
24GB's a bit odd duck... why not be conventional and go 32GB? That's what I've been using for 119 months
 

Orizence

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Nov 10, 2014
343
110
More RAM is almost always a good decision... especially if- as you say- you are intending to keep it for upwards of 10 years. We used to have the ability to add more if we needed it but now we have to anticipate all possibilities up front and buy for the future... OR plan to toss the whole machine and buy a replacement.

However, if you do NOT anticipate doing any more with it than the things you listed over that entire 10-year span, 16GB should be plenty of RAM. It's only where you MIGHT go with your computing in the future that may make a case for 24GB today.

The alternative is to NOT assume 10+ years and be ready to toss & replace sooner than your last Mac experience.
Maybe some small bits of video editing, but I don't plan on buying a new camera any time soon as 24MP is already quite a bit.

As much as I love my Late 2012, it takes 45 minutes to export a photo to a JPG from a RAW, and I cant even really use the darn thing while its doing it (maybe AI is a bit much for a dual core i5 that gets 101c...).
 

HobeSoundDarryl

macrumors G5
Maybe some small bits of video editing, but I don't plan on buying a new camera any time soon as 24MP is already quite a bit.

As much as I love my Late 2012, it takes 45 minutes to export a photo to a JPG from a RAW, and I cant even really use the darn thing while its doing it (maybe AI is a bit much for a dual core i5 that gets 101c...).

This will feel like a tremendous leap forward from 2012 technology. I've stretched the use of some Macs over many years too- in fact I still use a 2012 MBpro from time to time- so you'll probably be floored by the upgrade.
 

Onimusha370

macrumors 6502a
Aug 25, 2010
987
1,418
Hey everyone. I ordered a 16GB/256 last night but Im worried I ordered the wrong one. I mostly do internet browsing, email, listen to FLACs, and edit photos in DxO Photolab 6.

I'm not worried about the SSD as I keep my home folder on a external 1TB SSD. But im worried 16GB is not enough ram anymore, is it? I would like to keep this machine for a while (hopefully last as long as my 2012 Mac Mini), is 24GB the better choice?
Sounds like for your use case, you probably don't need any more than 16GB of ram - but if you're planning on keeping it for a long time, and can afford the 24GB, then I'd say go for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TechNutt

now i see it

macrumors G4
Jan 2, 2002
10,914
23,143
It’s not like the mac slows to glacial speed if heaven forbid some memory gets written to the SSD occasionally. You probably won’t even notice it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Luap

Fishrrman

macrumors Penryn
Feb 20, 2009
28,756
12,864
For the use case you specified in post 1, I'll reckon that 16gb will be just fine.
 

meson

macrumors 6502a
Apr 29, 2014
500
488
Maybe some small bits of video editing, but I don't plan on buying a new camera any time soon as 24MP is already quite a bit.

As much as I love my Late 2012, it takes 45 minutes to export a photo to a JPG from a RAW, and I cant even really use the darn thing while its doing it (maybe AI is a bit much for a dual core i5 that gets 101c...).
45 minute exports?! What 2012 machine are you using? How much ram? Is the storage a spinning hard drive or ssd?

I'm inclined to believe that your machine still has a spinning hard drive. If that is the case, you are in for a real surprise. If your 2012 has an ssd, and you are still getting export times that long, then your files must be massive, or you are running into another bottleneck. Since you mention AI, the cpu may very well be the bottleneck.

I do recall my wife having some pretty long export times in photoshop when she was using her 2010 iMac, but those were pretty large batches of photos. She's actually been preferring to work on her base model 13" M1 Air with only 8GB of ram over her 2019 iMac lately. I'm not sure if it has more to do with portability or the responsiveness of the hardware, but export times are measured more in seconds now rather than minutes.

Regardless, I think you will be pleasantly surprised with the new machine.
 

tevion5

macrumors 68000
Jul 12, 2011
1,966
1,602
Ireland
IMO the jump to a higher SSD capacity would improve performance more meaningfully. A better value upgrade first if you can only do one.

16GB RAM is plenty for 99% of people including myself on my new M2 Pro mini.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: profets

MauiPa

macrumors 68040
Apr 18, 2018
3,435
5,085
I have 8GB and see no memory pressure , even when I try to get some, so I'd say 16GB is plenty. You can easily use activity monitor and see if you are getting memory pressure and how much ram you are using. I would not be concerned about numbers, but on actual results. so few people here who whine about memory actually discuss the memory issues they are having. Not saying they are not being honest, but it would be nice to see some actual numbers behind their "issues"

Just my opinion and you got what you paid for, you paid nothing, so maybe that is in reality what my opinion is worth
 

Orizence

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Nov 10, 2014
343
110
45 minute exports?! What 2012 machine are you using? How much ram? Is the storage a spinning hard drive or ssd?

I'm inclined to believe that your machine still has a spinning hard drive. If that is the case, you are in for a real surprise. If your 2012 has an ssd, and you are still getting export times that long, then your files must be massive, or you are running into another bottleneck. Since you mention AI, the cpu may very well be the bottleneck.

I do recall my wife having some pretty long export times in photoshop when she was using her 2010 iMac, but those were pretty large batches of photos. She's actually been preferring to work on her base model 13" M1 Air with only 8GB of ram over her 2019 iMac lately. I'm not sure if it has more to do with portability or the responsiveness of the hardware, but export times are measured more in seconds now rather than minutes.

Regardless, I think you will be pleasantly surprised with the new machine.
Its a Late 2012 Mac Mini Core i5 with a 256GB SSD and 16gb of ram running the latest MacOS12. The average RAW file I deal with is about 20ishMB, but the denoising tool uses AI to remove the noise, I can use much higher ISO than I normally would and the noise disappears. Some exports only take about 5-20 minutes but as you can imagine, if I go on a hike or a trip and touch up 50 photos, that still takes up quite a bit of time that I cant browse the net.

Its very much the CPU being the bottleneck, the things gets like 100c and I can probably warm coffee on the top of the thing. The issue is I don't have a Windows license and I will not install Windows on my gaming PC, and I have too much Mac only software to completely switch anyways.
 

Orizence

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Nov 10, 2014
343
110
IMO the jump to more SSD capacity would improve performance more meaningfully. Better value upgrade first if you only do one. 16GB is plenty for 99% of people including myself.
The internal SSD will hold none of my personal data and the one that the M2 has is already faster than what I use, I have a Samsung T7 that has the job of holding my home folder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tevion5

meson

macrumors 6502a
Apr 29, 2014
500
488
Its a Late 2012 Mac Mini Core i5 with a 256GB SSD and 16gb of ram running the latest MacOS12. The average RAW file I deal with is about 20ishMB, but the denoising tool uses AI to remove the noise, I can use much higher ISO than I normally would and the noise disappears. Some exports only take about 5-20 minutes but as you can imagine, if I go on a hike or a trip and touch up 50 photos, that still takes up quite a bit of time that I cant browse the net.

Its very much the CPU being the bottleneck, the things gets like 100c and I can probably warm coffee on the top of the thing. The issue is I don't have a Windows license and I will not install Windows on my gaming PC, and I have too much Mac only software to completely switch anyways.
Thanks for sharing. Hopefully the new computing power makes things much more bearable. More ram may help, but it may not if you are truly limited by computation side of things. I would definitely plan on giving the 16gb machine a good workout before spending more. The way my wife batch edits, I'm pretty sure I could give her a Mac Pro with a stupid amount of ram and she would find a way to make it thrash the storage.

Not being able shoot at a low enough ISO for the shutter speed I needed is one of the big things that have held me back over the years from using one of my wife's old camera bodies and shooting while I'm out fishing or at a sporting event. It may be time to pull out the camera and give it a go again and see if I can learn some new editing techniques to clean up the noise.
 

profcutter

macrumors 68000
Mar 28, 2019
1,514
1,230
I think it sounds like 16GB should be fine. Like other folks have said, it's miles faster than your 2012. The SSD question is about storage speed as well, but again, in your use case, I'd get the 16GB and see, but I would think it would be plenty.
 

MayaUser

macrumors 68030
Nov 22, 2021
2,923
6,353
Hey everyone. I ordered a 16GB/256 last night but Im worried I ordered the wrong one. I mostly do internet browsing, email, listen to FLACs, and edit photos in DxO Photolab 6.

I'm not worried about the SSD as I keep my home folder on a external 1TB SSD. But im worried 16GB is not enough ram anymore, is it? I would like to keep this machine for a while (hopefully last as long as my 2012 Mac Mini), is 24GB the better choice?
you ordered the right device for your needs and you will be fine for at least 5 years from now
 
  • Like
Reactions: tevion5

nollimac

macrumors 6502
Oct 10, 2013
429
34
You know yourself more than anyone else so if you're worried go the 24GB RAM...just for history, the only time I have had 24 RAM was 1996 on my PowerMac 7200 and cost me $1012 for 24MB RAM.
 

Orizence

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Nov 10, 2014
343
110
Not being able shoot at a low enough ISO for the shutter speed I needed is one of the big things that have held me back over the years from using one of my wife's old camera bodies and shooting while I'm out fishing or at a sporting event. It may be time to pull out the camera and give it a go again and see if I can learn some new editing techniques to clean up the noise.
With DxO Photolab, I do not think about ISO anymore at all (okay maybe a little) with the DeepPrime algorithm. It makes so many "unusable" photos usable again, and thats before even "editing".
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.