I'm considering a Mac Studio M5 Max. My current, very old, Mac Pro has 160GB. When I check the Activity Monitor, I'm using 70-76GB of memory with over 100 app/services running. The price jump from 64 to 128GB of memory is $1600. I only use one app at a time with many just sitting idle so I don't have to bring them up when I need them. Others, like mail, run in the background periodically. If I go with 64GB, I assume some apps/service will be moved to the swap file. Will this be much of an issue give my usage?
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.
Is 64GB Memory Enough?
- Thread starter gcortes
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mac studio memory swap file
- Sort by reaction score
aakshey
macrumors 68040
With your usage best to get 128+ gb I guess
Starfia
macrumors 68000
gcortes –
I'm not sure I have a complete picture of what you're doing with software, but even an entry-level Mac mini M1 with 8 gigs of memory is more than enough to run one app at a time with other apps performing routine background tasks like checking for mail.
The Activity Monitor readout on my Mac mini M1 (with 16 gigs of memory) is showing about 650 processes, and I'm sometimes using two or more apps at a time to do more intensive stuff like compressing video, making music, 3D rendering, compiling with Xcode, and so on. I'm sure there's plenty of memory compression and swapping happening, but I almost never perceive slowdown.
I'm not sure I have a complete picture of what you're doing with software, but even an entry-level Mac mini M1 with 8 gigs of memory is more than enough to run one app at a time with other apps performing routine background tasks like checking for mail.
The Activity Monitor readout on my Mac mini M1 (with 16 gigs of memory) is showing about 650 processes, and I'm sometimes using two or more apps at a time to do more intensive stuff like compressing video, making music, 3D rendering, compiling with Xcode, and so on. I'm sure there's plenty of memory compression and swapping happening, but I almost never perceive slowdown.
Last edited:
MarkC426
macrumors 601
Another consideration…your ‘very old Mac Pro’ will operate completely differently to an ‘M’ series Mac in the way Ram is managed/utilised. Modern Macs can handle so much more (as noted above by @Starfia).
If you where bumping to 128gb M5 Max with 1TB storage, it is virtually the same price as an M5 Ultra base with 96gb.
If you where bumping to 128gb M5 Max with 1TB storage, it is virtually the same price as an M5 Ultra base with 96gb.
To be more specific, my Mac Pro is a 2019, 12 Core Intel Xeon. I'm not going to with the 128GB given what I've read here. I'm think swapping would only be an issue if a specific process used up all the RAM and had to swap while processing. If another app was swapped out and you switched to it, it would be read back in and stay there. Limiting it to 64GB also allows me to get with the Mac Mini M5 Pro.
Remember, MacOS will use AS MUCH memory as it can. If you've got 160 Gb of RAM, then the OS is going to leave everything in RAM until you fill it.
You haven't said what it is you do with your Mac. Unless you're doing something pretty hardcore, I'd say 64 Gb is more than enough.
I have 32 Gb RAM in my Macs, and I do DTP work, audio rendering, font creation, web design, app development. I leave several large, "Pro" apps open for weeks on end, and I switch between them constantly; plus countless browser tabs, Gb-sized PDF files, etc.
I have 104 Active Processes (e.g. currently using CPU), and 670 processes that are in RAM but using no CPU.
My memory pressure is firmly in the Green nearly all the time, unless I'm doing something particularly taxing. I can't say that I've ever thought "Oh, that'll be the computer swapping something back in."
Last edited:
Alameda
Contributor
You almost sure don’t even need 64GB. Can you describe what you think are 2 or 3 of the most memory intensive activities you perform?
100 services running at once is nothing. I have seven apps open now and there are hundreds of active processes. And total memory used is just 30 GB. It would be fine if this computer had just 16GB of physical RAM, maybe 24 would make it faster. I’m just a moderate user; I don’t keep a lot of applications open; I’m not editing 8K videos with ten graphics apps running at once; I don’t have 200 Chrome browser tabs.
What I do to keep performance well is this: First, I use Safari, not Chrome. Chrome uses massive amounts of memory. Even with Safari, I close tabs I’m not using and I quit apps I’m not using. That isn’t to say I have one browser tab open at once, I often have five to ten open. But my work these days requires concentration so I do all I can to remove distractions anyway.
That’s all there is to it. I have 48 GB (which is overkill, at least now). Apple will need to push many updates before I’m using it all up, if ever.
I started this thread because I watched a video where the presenter showed how he wasn't using all his memory in Activity Monitor and therefore had enough. The made me think I needed to have free memory. That's what I get for watching YouTube videos.
I use the computer to run Logic Pro. It's the biggest consumer of memory at around 4GB. I occasionally run Premier Pro to do minor video work. Work wise, I mostly do web site development using JetBrains IDE. The databases for the sites are on a separate server. The second use for the computer is to run World of Warcraft. It uses about 6GB of memory. I get less than 40fps on my 32" 6k XDR monitor. The game runs fine at medium quality settings.
The main driving factors for getting a new computer are the sunsetting of support for Intel CPUs and better video support for the game. Given what Alameda said, I may be fine with less the 64GB.
I use the computer to run Logic Pro. It's the biggest consumer of memory at around 4GB. I occasionally run Premier Pro to do minor video work. Work wise, I mostly do web site development using JetBrains IDE. The databases for the sites are on a separate server. The second use for the computer is to run World of Warcraft. It uses about 6GB of memory. I get less than 40fps on my 32" 6k XDR monitor. The game runs fine at medium quality settings.
The main driving factors for getting a new computer are the sunsetting of support for Intel CPUs and better video support for the game. Given what Alameda said, I may be fine with less the 64GB.
Last edited:
You do not need anywhere 64GB RAM, not today when RAM is this crazy expensive. I run macOS with 30+ apps opened (+background tasks) + Windows Virtual machine (Parallels or WM Fusion) in 31GB RAM and never run into RAM issues. The only reasons to go with 64GB RAM is if you either are doing video/picture/music processing and need to load huge files in or if you are running some local AI models. I run on M5Max 64GB RAM today all my Mac apps I need, occasionally Windows, and still can allocate 24-36GB RAM to AI models running locally. I run into troubles ONLY when I accidentally load two models at the same time.
Save money, get 24-32GB RAM at most and be happy... Those "experts" are not normal users, those are extreme edge users and that is not 99.9% of us.
Also, get Pro, MAX is waste for what you need. The difference between MAX and Pro for you will be only shorter battery life as MAX does eat batteries somehow faster.
Save money, get 24-32GB RAM at most and be happy... Those "experts" are not normal users, those are extreme edge users and that is not 99.9% of us.
Also, get Pro, MAX is waste for what you need. The difference between MAX and Pro for you will be only shorter battery life as MAX does eat batteries somehow faster.
4sallypat
macrumors 603
To future proof, get a 96GB M5.
Apple Silicon RAM is very different than Intel based hardware.
My Neo with 8GB runs almost everything I use perfectly.
OTOH my M1 Studio Max with 32GB is equally perfect but able to multitask including FCP.
Logic Pro use, I'd get 64 GB minimum or for future proof 96 GB.
Apple Silicon RAM is very different than Intel based hardware.
My Neo with 8GB runs almost everything I use perfectly.
OTOH my M1 Studio Max with 32GB is equally perfect but able to multitask including FCP.
Logic Pro use, I'd get 64 GB minimum or for future proof 96 GB.
aakshey
macrumors 68040
DPUser
macrumors 6502a
Your RAM requirements will be almost completely dependent on what you do with Virtual Instruments in Logic... simple pop productions don't need much, but a big orchestral emulation using multiple mic positions can raise RAM needs well beyond 64GB, especially if one doesn't manage VI pre-load size.
Kontakt defaults to 60kb pre-load buffer size. This pre-load size is a remnant from the days of streaming from spinning rust. If sample are streamed from fast storage, the pre-load can be reduced to the minimum 6kb on many systems.
dmr727
macrumors G4
aakshey
macrumors 68040
Empty, unused RAM...? At these prices? 🤣
Here's my current RAM usage:
MacOS is using 27 of 32 Gb, and the remaining RAM is filled with "cached files". This will improve performance by holding various things in memory, but that space can be recovered if needed.
Some of the "used" memory itself is compressed. Special hardware on the CPU "zips" and "unzips" the data before it is processed. I've got about 12 Gb of RAM that is actually holding up to twice that much of data.
The graph on the left shows the amount of memory compression in use. I'm still "in the green", which is absolutely fine.
Here's a Mac with 16Gb, where the Memory Pressure is getting a bit high.
The graph has moved from green to yellow, as the amount of compression used has increased. There's 2 Gb of cached files, but c. 14 of 16 Gb is being used, of which over 8 Gb is compressed (e.g. probably around twice that size).
As said, for audio work, if you're using high-quality orchestral samples from people like Orchestral Tools, Spitfire, Vienna Symphonic Library, then yes, you'll need a lot of RAM. 64 Gb should be sufficient, unless you're using hundreds of tracks.
If you're just doing pop tracks, jazz bands or small ensembles using Apple's own Logic samples, then I'd say 48 Gb is probably plenty. In fact, the 16 Gb memory summary above is running about 20 tracks of Orchestral Tools samples in Dorico with absolutely no problem.
MacOS's memory management is very good; also the memory bandwidth, and the speed of both the RAM and the SSD is insane, to such an extent that you can have huge amounts of memory compression and there's hardly any noticeable effect.
In fact, I've seen 8 Gb systems juggling 3 times their body weight in actual data, with only some slowness as data was swapped back in.
As for "future proofing" -- I haven't seen any increase in my RAM use in the last 6 years on Apple Silicon. Certainly not anything that would require an ADDITIONAL 64 Gb on top of an existing 64 Gb! 🤣
Last edited:
I have an M1 Max MBP with 64GB of RAM for work and a M4 Max Studio with 36GB of RAM at home. I can run the same workflows on both and the M1 Max will use more RAM just because it has it to cache things. The 36GB studio manages the same tasks without a higher memory pressure or using swap because the OS is adapting to it. The only thing I see consistent advantage to 64GB is it's ability to enable my bad Chrome habits by not breaking a sweat even if I have 4 browser windows with 15-20 tabs each open and couple apps in the background... It really spoils you....
That said. I think 64GB is probably the sweet spot for the new M5 Max Studio, unless you're doing heavy video editing or local AI work where you KNOW you need 128GB.
That said. I think 64GB is probably the sweet spot for the new M5 Max Studio, unless you're doing heavy video editing or local AI work where you KNOW you need 128GB.
edubfromktown
macrumors 65816
I’m not being sarcastic when I say that my hat is off to those who can afford Mac Studios with 128GB of RAM. I had ordered a M5 Max Mac Studio with 64GB of RAM and 2TB of storage. I had second thoughts about dropping down to 1TB of storage. Then I started being honest with myself and realized my M2 Max Mac Studio will last a few more years. So I canceled my order completely. It’s just all too much money. Like many others, I’m just going to ride out the AI crisis.
MarkC426
macrumors 601
Yep, the updated price hikes (for the Max) where not too bad…..compared to the Ultra.
But the killer is any kind of BTO upgrade…..the prices are just criminal.
£700 for an extra 28GB ram (64)….😂 (because you also need the cpu upgrade).
£2300 for an extra 92GB ram (128)……🤣
And that’s before you even look at the Ultra options.
The sooner the AI bubble bursts the better…..😡
Why should we (the consumers) have to be fleeced, because of large scale nonsense.
edubfromktown
macrumors 65816
Totally respect the decision and have wondered the same.
I am pushing my 2022 M1 Max 32 GB to near theoretical limits. That's part of how I'm justifying the upgrade- not some "future proof" dream/nightmare or FOMO knee-jerk reaction. I've also lived below my means and invested wisely for decades so, a small part of that discipline can be "splashed around" for this endeavor.
If I get 4-5 years out of new hardware, that's OK by me.
VaZ
macrumors 6502
monokakata
macrumors 68020
I'm in exactly the same position with my M2 Max 64/2 TB, and keep thinking (well, wanting) the M5/64/2 but yikes, it's expensive. And the current Studio handles everything I throw at it. Like you, I think I'll wait a bit.
I leave my Mac Pro running without rebooting until there's an update that requires or it gets flakey. It got flakey and after the reboot, my memory usage went from the 70GB's to the 40GB's running the same apps. That's a lot of memory leaking. I'm going to have to reboot more often. I certainly don't need 128GB and I'm thing 48GB will be fine.
WOW, that would be the best botnet node. The owner would never know if part of his machine's computing power was stolen. I read a rumor somewhere that Apple is planning to rent out some of the computing power of the super-powerful Mac Mini and Studio owners' machines to AI companies.