I wouldn’t worry about it too much. But if you use Lightroom a lot I would get a 1TB SSD cuz 512GB will die soon. Lightroom is a resource hog. I use bridge instead and edit in camera raw.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Does my M2 have too little memory for Lightroom?
- Thread starter Moriske
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
why will 512GB 'die soon'? and how hard is it to store some files on an external? anyway, can you explain what you mean...?
Thanks in advance for your tip.
The print screen shows that I am fortunately running the correct version of Lightroom Classic.
The Lightroom catalog stands for performance on the internal SSD and the photos themselves on an external SSD.
I wouldn't get the internal 1TB SSD for space, just for the swap and longevity.
Backup on a Synolgy DS923+
Think of it this way.
All apps use as much RAM as they require; meaning once they hit that requirement, they shouldn’t need to use more. Apps like Lightroom don’t make this concept obvious because it’s essentially one big media library that loads data as you need it. Depending on how you use the app at any given time, it could use 2gb or 20gb of RAM.
The main take away is that you could have all the RAM Apple offers and Lightroom would still take an enormous chunk of it, since it’s designed to utilise free memory for quicker loading times.
Your best value would be to stick with 16gb and simply close any other apps that you’re not using. Also make it a habit to restart Lightroom between projects, as the media that’s cached at one time may not be relevant at another and you’ll therefore save RAM.
All apps use as much RAM as they require; meaning once they hit that requirement, they shouldn’t need to use more. Apps like Lightroom don’t make this concept obvious because it’s essentially one big media library that loads data as you need it. Depending on how you use the app at any given time, it could use 2gb or 20gb of RAM.
The main take away is that you could have all the RAM Apple offers and Lightroom would still take an enormous chunk of it, since it’s designed to utilise free memory for quicker loading times.
Your best value would be to stick with 16gb and simply close any other apps that you’re not using. Also make it a habit to restart Lightroom between projects, as the media that’s cached at one time may not be relevant at another and you’ll therefore save RAM.
Honestly if you're gonna upgrade the RAM in a Mac Mini to 24 gb, at that point I'd just get a Mac Studio instead since base spec Mac Studio comes with 32 gbs. They're going on sale a lot and are $200 off refurbished for a M1 Max one. Hell I just found one guy selling his Mac Studio for $1650 on eBay.
Trust me. You'll get a lot more mileage out of that M1 Max in Lightroom than you would a vanilla M2 and it'll last a lot longer
Trust me. You'll get a lot more mileage out of that M1 Max in Lightroom than you would a vanilla M2 and it'll last a lot longer
To add to the (great) point above and as a LR user myself, I would suggest that the CPU/GPU only become a bottleneck once you're working with very high-res images. For even the prosumer, a vanilla M2 is adequate.
I work with medium format images on an M1 Pro 16/512 MBP, and it runs like a dream. But everyones mileage is different: whereas I switch between LR and PS for single images, some users will be regularly importing/exporting and reviewing lots of photographs through their library, at which point RAM would be a big consideration.
I work with medium format images on an M1 Pro 16/512 MBP, and it runs like a dream. But everyones mileage is different: whereas I switch between LR and PS for single images, some users will be regularly importing/exporting and reviewing lots of photographs through their library, at which point RAM would be a big consideration.
Here is my memory usage using Lightroom and Photoshop on large (190 MP) files.
Don't 100% believe those that say "you will be fine" with 16GB. Depending on what you are doing, it is quite possible to benefit from more.
PS and LR are memory hogs on Apple Silicon, much more so than on Intel.
Don't 100% believe those that say "you will be fine" with 16GB. Depending on what you are doing, it is quite possible to benefit from more.
PS and LR are memory hogs on Apple Silicon, much more so than on Intel.
I am a heavy LR user (pro photographer). Until very recently I was on a 16GB MBP. Unless you are working with some really huge images, 16GB is usually plenty, although more is better. By "huge" I mean 400mp and up. This might be due to multi-shot stacks, or more likely with files with many layers (photoshop) or large panos. (This can also happen with some roll and bed-style scanners. I have some 1.4 gigapixel files from a giant HP scanner.)
What do I actually use? a 64GB machine, but as noted I have some of those giant files. If I'm not working on those, 16GB is enough most of the time.
And even in a pinch, it's not horrible even with some pretty enormous files. I sure wouldn't recommend it for 800mp files, but I have had days with that HP scanner when I was on-site and that MBP was all I had. (At the time, 16GB was all the bigger they came.) But if you run into the situation, it won't drive you up a wall, either. OTOH 800mp is a LOT bigger than most photographers are working with.
What do I actually use? a 64GB machine, but as noted I have some of those giant files. If I'm not working on those, 16GB is enough most of the time.
And even in a pinch, it's not horrible even with some pretty enormous files. I sure wouldn't recommend it for 800mp files, but I have had days with that HP scanner when I was on-site and that MBP was all I had. (At the time, 16GB was all the bigger they came.) But if you run into the situation, it won't drive you up a wall, either. OTOH 800mp is a LOT bigger than most photographers are working with.
Last edited:
I don't even work in lightroom, I do AI image generation like the horrible person I am, and my M1 Pro becomes a bottleneck since it's just a base spec with 16 gb of RAM. I mean it can do it, but it's a lot slower compared to my gaming PC with a RTX 3060 since it doesn't have as much RAM.
Don't look at memory pressure for this. The question is... do you suffer from noticeable performance lag? If so, then you need more RAM. If not, then you're probably good.
That said, Lightroom eats RAM. I've been constant proponent of Apple silicon with just 8GB or 16GB of RAM for most general computing and productivity workflows. I do silly amounts of multitasking (MS Office, email, browser windows, light VM, Apple Photos app, Final Cut etc.) and my 16GB M1 Pro has never slowed down. Heck, my 8GB M2 Air never slows down either, although I don't generally push on it as much as I do the M1Pro. Sometimes I realize just how many things I have open and fire up Activity monitor to find memory pressure in the yellow or red, but I just never experience lag.
That said, I know that Lightroom, and Creative Suite with large files hog RAM.
I would just let experience guide you on this. If your machine feels slow to the point that it feels annoying to use, you're going to have to upgrade to one with more RAM. If you're worried about memory pressure and swap, but the daily performance is mostly ok, then don't sweat it.
That said, Lightroom eats RAM. I've been constant proponent of Apple silicon with just 8GB or 16GB of RAM for most general computing and productivity workflows. I do silly amounts of multitasking (MS Office, email, browser windows, light VM, Apple Photos app, Final Cut etc.) and my 16GB M1 Pro has never slowed down. Heck, my 8GB M2 Air never slows down either, although I don't generally push on it as much as I do the M1Pro. Sometimes I realize just how many things I have open and fire up Activity monitor to find memory pressure in the yellow or red, but I just never experience lag.
That said, I know that Lightroom, and Creative Suite with large files hog RAM.
I would just let experience guide you on this. If your machine feels slow to the point that it feels annoying to use, you're going to have to upgrade to one with more RAM. If you're worried about memory pressure and swap, but the daily performance is mostly ok, then don't sweat it.
Using a ssd as ram which is what swap is puts a lot of wear and tear on it. This is a known thing. Especially if you fill up your drive.
how does this relate to a 512gb drive specifically, vs a 1TB drive (or any SSD?). and how long does any SSD have with all that 'wear and tear'?.... 🤔
The larger the drive, the more total bytes can be written to it. For example, if a 512GB SSD has a TBW of 200TB, meaning that's how much data, on average, the mfgr claims that drive can be written to before it may fail, then the 1TB version of the same SSD will have a TBW of 400TB.how does this relate to a 512gb drive specifically, vs a 1TB drive (or any SSD?). and how long does any SSD have with all that 'wear and tear'?....
Yup, mine is laggy and beachballing. In fact with these large files in PS and LR I do better with my 32GB Intel iMac (which isn't exactly snappy either). No surprise that having yellow memory pressure and 25GB of swap would bog down.
Last edited:
You might be able to tell from the pushback you've gotten here that you're getting obsessed with the wrong things. Don't worry about Max Tech videos - their whole schtick is keeping people engaged by hyper-focusing on things that don't matter.
You are spending money in order to get a colour on a graph, or some intangible peace of mind about your SSD lasting longer. Isn't that a bit silly? You're not focused on how well your computer does the things you want it to do, or what it's like using it.
I don't have RAM and hardware questions, I have workflow questions.
You say you're using "quite a bit of memory" while using LR. Okay, when? Is it when you import files into your catalog? Is it when you're doing post in the develop module? Applying gradients to an image? Is it when you export files? If so, how many at once and what size files are they? What kind of files are you working on?
Also, how many images are in your catalog?
I agree with some posters here who feel your install may be the problem, or at least that it’s software based. I went from a 2014 iMac 5K with 32GB of RAM to an M1Max MBPro with 32GB of RAM and my memory load has decreased overall.
Are you using the same version of the program that you used on your iMac? Is it one that is optimized for Apple Silicon or is it an Intel binary?
Are you using the same version of the program that you used on your iMac? Is it one that is optimized for Apple Silicon or is it an Intel binary?
@All
Summarizing the messages here, I understand that Ligtroom will continue to devour your memory no matter how much you have on board. As long as I don't notice a loss in performance, you can continue for years with 16GB of memory.
I just keep finding it strange that I never saw any swap on my old iMac 5K from 2015 with 24GB memory, and with the M2 16GB memory?
The general performance of the M2 compared to my iMac 2015 has improved considerably, a big plus for the M2. All programs open very quickly and work smoothly.
My photo catalog consists mainly of raw files +/- 25GB, which come directly from a Sony A7III.
I also want to add that I don't have to earn a living with this and Lightroom is purely for hobby use, so I have to be able to justify the costs myself.
The only upgrade that seems to make sense outside of memory is to increase the internal SSD from 512GB to 1TB.
I would do this purely to give the SSD a longer life through the swap, and not for space. Because the Lightroom catalog is on an external SSD and I have a Synology Nas as a backup
Summarizing the messages here, I understand that Ligtroom will continue to devour your memory no matter how much you have on board. As long as I don't notice a loss in performance, you can continue for years with 16GB of memory.
I just keep finding it strange that I never saw any swap on my old iMac 5K from 2015 with 24GB memory, and with the M2 16GB memory?
The general performance of the M2 compared to my iMac 2015 has improved considerably, a big plus for the M2. All programs open very quickly and work smoothly.
My photo catalog consists mainly of raw files +/- 25GB, which come directly from a Sony A7III.
I also want to add that I don't have to earn a living with this and Lightroom is purely for hobby use, so I have to be able to justify the costs myself.
The only upgrade that seems to make sense outside of memory is to increase the internal SSD from 512GB to 1TB.
I would do this purely to give the SSD a longer life through the swap, and not for space. Because the Lightroom catalog is on an external SSD and I have a Synology Nas as a backup
Before you do that, read this article by Howard Oakley: it expressly addresses the idea that swapping will damage your drive. Computing — Tracking swap space: is it wearing out your SSD? – The Eclectic Light Company. (Howard is one of the most respected technical writers on the Mac and he has no time for the hyperbolic frothing of YouTubers with clicks to harvest. Look through the rest of the site if you're interested in how Macs *really* work…). He writes:
Note: "even the most industrious of us don't write enough data [...] to wear them out over their normal expected lifetime of around ten years", and "In extreme cases this could run an SSD into the ground in less than five years".
You *may* belong to the latter category (though it seems unlikely from your posts so far), but only you can judge that. Of course, you'll buy what you want to buy, and so you should, but the article gives you ways to estimate whether your use is extreme or not, so you can make that decision with more confidence.
HTH.
Last edited:
Upgrading to a higher capacity SSD purely to extend the life of the SSD makes 0 sense, and is purely just YouTuber nonsense from idiots like Max Tech.
Using a ssd as ram which is what swap is puts a lot of wear and tear on it. This is a known thing. Especially if you fill up your drive. I wouldn’t use light
the larger the drive the longer it lasts.
and how much time difference are we talking? days? years? decades? seriously, everyone i know buys what they buy (ie macs with 256g on up), use their macs, and... life goes on.
A couple things:
- The amount of used swap space is not a great indicator, better is
- memory pressure, the yellow color indicates that the used memory is at the limit, the Mac might start to experience significant slowdowns up to the point where the mouse cursor can start lagging behind the actual mouse movement,
- and even though Lightroom is known to eat memory for breakfast, if you do experience slowdowns the only way to resolve it would be to add memory, after all 16GiB is the recommended minimum for lightroom (8GiB is the absolute minimum).
- If you experience no slowdowns and it's right on the border where the memory is full but the Mac still works as expected, then it's fine. If anything, I'd upgrade to a M2 Pro with 32GiB, switching out the entire Mac for a measly +8GiB isn't worth it in my opinion. If 16GiB really aren't enough, chances are 24GiB won't make the big difference. 32GiB on the other hand are actually pretty hard to overflow, I have 32GiB on all my multiple Macs and even though I can easily get it to swap, actually getting it to slow down and run out of memory is really hard. On my older 16GiB Macs I would literally get freezing mouse cursors for minutes at a time.
- The reason you didn't have the issue on the Intel Mac might be that it had dedicated VRAM, which is memory for graphics. On Apple Silicon the system memory is shared with the graphics, you can see that in your Activity Monitor screenshot by looking at the "Wired Memory" which contains (amongst other things) what is in use by graphics. In your screenshot it shows you need to subtract 2.63GiB from your 16GiB total, these 2.63GiB aren't actually available as regular memory for applications. If you have a graphics heavy application running, the graphics memory usage can grow accordingly and lower the available application memory further.
- SSD reliability nowadays is good enough that even excessive swapping won't make much of a dent in the SSD lifetime. Apple has used relatively high quality flash storage in the past, although there is no info on what the latest M2 Macs are rated for.
- To give a better understanding, cheap QLC flash SSDs (which Apple does not use!) can be fully overwritten about 200 times before manufacturers claim it has any impact whatsoever. That means a 1TB drive can write 200TB of data. This number however can safely be doubled really, I have a 1TB QLC drive with 600TB written and not a single defect is showing up yet, meaning that this cheap crucial P1 was overwritten 600 times without starting to fail.
- Higher quality flash storage can be overwritten more than 1000 times, somewhere in the ballpark of 1000-1500 times. Apple is known to be using flash storage above this region. For reference, the M1 Macs are known to have flash storage that can be overwritten roughly 2.500 times before actual failure occurs. For a 500GB Apple SSD you can expect to write a full Petabyte, and once it reaches 1.25PB you can expect the SSD to be dead.
- With excessive swapping under your workloads that would equate to more than 5 years of lifetime. Maybe it's only 6, maybe it's a full 10 years. I can't claim to know, you might be using Lightroom as a workoholic 20 hours a day, or you might use it every couple of days for your hobby.
- I have personally tried to kill many of my SSDs by using it for worse workloads than they were ever intended for, as mentioned my very cheap Crucial P1 1TB SSD was rated for 200TB and now at 600TB it is still working without a single failed read or write attempt.
- In other words, you can't prematurely kill even a cheaper SSD with excessive swapping, nevermind the better quality flash storage that Apple uses.
- None of this however applies to the 250GB SSD M2 Mac models, unfortunately those are now severely hindered in performance and reliability by Apple on purpose to save manufacuring costs. They only use a single flash storage module, which cuts performance and reliability pretty much in half. To be fair, you won't expect anyone to use the cheapest configuration for such intense workloads, but if you do, you can literally cut your entire Mac's lifetime in half from 5-10 years to 2.5-5 years. Because once the SSD fails on Apple Silicon devices, they are completely dead as firmware essential for booting any OS is stored on the internal SSD. Without it, the device cannot even boot into any sort of recovery mode and the only fix is to replace the logic board (which will cost almost as much as the entire cheap entry level Mac).