The good news is your system is practically new, probably a return. The unsafe shutdown seems high. Mine is 25 with 8TB+ written. But you don't have any errors. Use it for a while and see if unsafe showdowns goes up significantly.
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.
Mac Mini m2 Pro - 16GB vs 32GB
- Thread starter icemantx
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I really appreciate your insight! I will keep using it to see if the unsafe shutdowns increase. Thanks!
So I posted the above on 1/24/2023 and ultimately went with the M1 Max Mac Studio, now that Costco.com has it on sale for $1499.
I initially ordered the 32GB/512GB Mac Studio in January when Costco had it on sale for $1699. I then returned it and ordered the 16GB/1TB M2 Pro but noticed some of my normal use (photo/video editing, app development, VMs, etc) put the memory pressure into high-yellow range. So back went the new Mini.
I considered getting an M2 Max MBP but held out due to rumors of the 15" MBA. Then the MBA 15 was confirmed to only get the regular M2 chip. I started to regret returning the Mac Studio at a great price, but now the price is even more fantastic and comes with Costco's 90-day return policy in case an M2 Max Mac Studio gets a surprise release at WWDC or later in the Summer.
I really like the 32GB on the base Mac Studio and front USBc and SDcard slots. A 32GB M2 Pro Mini is quieter but costs more and no ports on the front. For me, the extra GPU power and extra video encoders made the M1 Max more attractive for my needs than M2 Pro chip. For portability I still have my beloved 16GB/512GB M1 MBA. I am looking into the Acasis TB4 enclosure and a 2TB NVMe drive to increase the Mac Studio's storage.
Last edited:
Short version - had an M1 with 16/512. Using it with email, Safari, Firefox, messages and a couple of other apps open led to issues with one a particular art software (photo editing). Sadly I ended up moving up to the studio strictly for the RAM. The Studio meets my needs and rare do I run into an issue of RAM and processing with several apps open.
For me, I don't think I could work with 16 again and some have suggested 16 should be the new base model line not 8 gigs. I would opt for the 32 gigs. It would likely come in handy if not today then tomorrow as apps and OS become at times, more demanding.
For me, I don't think I could work with 16 again and some have suggested 16 should be the new base model line not 8 gigs. I would opt for the 32 gigs. It would likely come in handy if not today then tomorrow as apps and OS become at times, more demanding.
Just so you understand, the OS will use RAM because it is there and available. With any decent amount of apps, the OS will allocate the available RAM and get to something that looks like the RAM is all being used. Looking at those numbers is not what you want to do. You want to look at the graph of memory pressure. Open a bunch of stuff and look at memory pressure graph in activity monitor. If it is still green, then you haven't even made your Mini Pro sweat. If it is yellow, then you are still fine but getting to the point where if you went beyond here, you might see some issues. If it is red, then you are running into RAM constraints and probably hitting the SWAP pretty hard.
Do programs such as Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator run OK with 16GB of Ram or is 32GB of Ram better to have?
Flat out - more RAM is better. Especially if you have a fair amount of layers in Photoshop. I use a photo editing software and a couple of plugins. I would say that 32 gigs for me would be now minimum as I have a couple of other apps open as well AND the M series of Macs with the newer MacOS is miserable where memory management is concerned. I have two tabs open in Safari and the tool I use states it monopolizes over 5 gigs of RAM.
I hate that now you have to make the decision of how much RAM and hard drive size you need when you purchase the computer. It would be nice to be able to upgrade that when needed.
The M2 Pro Mini with 32GB RAM and a 2TB SSD without the processor upgrade is $2299. I'm now considering the Mac Studio with the M2 Max and a 2TB SSD for $2599. An upgrade to the better processor on the Mini with 32GB RAM and a 2TB SSD will be $2599.
The only advantage the Mac mini retains when you spec it up is size (mine is mounted behind my desk). I ended up with the M2 Pro Mac mini 10/16/16gb/2TB for $1899 in Feb 2023. For my use cases, I have not noticed any concerns with 16GB RAM (yet) compared to the 32GB I had in my late 2014 iMac 27" which I replaced.
Having said that, I do not use Photoshop or any apps that really require lots of RAM and have only seen swap used once or twice in the last 3 months when checking Activity Monitor. I can totally see the use case and benefits of more RAM for others with more demanding workflows.
I would imagine I can easily get 3-4 years out of my mini before feeling the need to upgrade and by that time the M5 Pro/Max will likely be out and who knows how the designs may evolve. By then, 32GB may seem minimum with 64GB being recommended.
I know I'm repeating what's already been said, but 24 GB would have been such a nice option to have for the Mac mini M2 Pro.
$1299 - Mac mini M2 Pro 16 GB / 512 GB
$1499 - Mac mini M2 Pro 24 GB / 512 GB <-- Hypothetical, but it would have been my preferred spec.
$1699 - Mac mini M2 Pro 32 GB / 512 GB
$1999 - Mac mini M2 Max 32 GB / 512 GB
Mind you, I'm happy with my M1 16 GB / 1 TB. My main complaint is the fewer USB ports. The lack of dual USB-C monitors is also a disappointment, but I'm sticking with just one monitor for now anyway.
BTW, where do you notice the most speed increases vs. your old 2014 iMac 27"? Did it have an SSD? Just curious. For my business type usage, I don't really notice much difference with my 2017 Core i5 iMac 27" with 24 GB / 1 TB SSD. The times there may be a more noticeable difference is when I'm dealing with multimedia files. However, my 2017 iMac won't get Sonoma.
Which tool is that? What other datapoints are you looking at?
Note that MacOS is a modern operating system. Ideally, all RAM that is in the box should be 100% used at all times, bar none. If it's not used, then it really is wasted RAM. It's the OS's job to use everything; if there's no running app, then cache everything it can in RAM to speed the disk up. If the RAM is highly loaded, compress the RAM so it can cram more data into the RAM (yes, quite literally; a modern CPU can easily handle this; Windows does it too, same with Linux).
Unless your system is excessively paging, I'd advise caution in just reading a usage chart and making a "this is how much RAM I need" assumption based strictly on that one datapoint.
I'm using the simple tool - memory diag.
It is hard to respond without sounding contrary so please take this as purely discussion.
As you seem to know some other OS that are out there, I'll keep this brief for you and just enough for others to follow. Full utilization of memory is to "maximize" while "optimizing" memory is in line with memory management which serves a few functions such as which processes/apps have priority, if/when an app requires more or less, to adjust accordingly and if a few apps are open, how to best meet the needs of all of them.
DOS could be manually addressed to which apps and such are in lower memory and which will reside in upper memory. OS/2 did a rather good job of managing memory on its own while Windows did not (16 or 32 bit).
I would imagine some here could easily remark how their Intel Macs seems to do a better job than the M chips in this venue. Intel with an older OS and less RAM somehow was not as plagued as we see today.
Again, I'll simply say that MacOS does not manage memory well or perhaps at all. It seems more as a free for all on a first come first served and doesn't quite manage expansion and lessening of memory as apps engage. For this reason alone, I opted to go from 16 gig M1 Mini to a Studio Max with more RAM available (and yes I did get quite a bit more). I don't hit that ceiling so much now that certain combinations of apps open creates issues.
Typical apps open - Affinity Photo, Topaz Photo AI and Giga, Luminar Neo, along with Mail app, Safari (2 or more tabs), Messages, TextEdit etc.
I'm not sure what "memory diag" is - please share the exact command or where it's located. If you are using an app on the App Store, I'd encourage you to drop that and focus on Activity Monitor; that's built-in, free, and standard for easy comparisons. And it's well documented, which helps, as 'cool memory utility app' developers can sometimes take extreme liberty at memory functions for underhanded reasons.
Your comments are so general on DOS, OS/2, etc. that I'm not sure what you're trying to say. DOS memory management was junk.
32 bit Windows NT did an outstanding job managing memory, with full protected memory (and preemptive multitasking) long before that came to MacOS. The memory technologies in it are exactly the same (granted, 25 years older) as what's in MacOS (and Linux, Windows 11) today.
I'm not sure who would agree that Intel Macs did a better job of memory management than ARM Macs. Most of the arguments I see about 8GB Macs suggests that memory management has gotten better, not worse.
I'm not sure what you're saying about poor MacOS memory management. What's the exact problem that you see, please? The point of an OS is to manage memory allocation, giving it to apps as they demand it. And in some ways, that IS a free-for-all, driven by you, the owner, as you choose what apps to run.
Again, please define "ceiling". Open Activity Monitor, flip to the memory tab, and look at memory pressure. Is there any, or is it just green?
Tangentially on topic only but this is my favourite screen grab of a memory leak (?) I had in Photos on my Intel Core i5-7600 iMac.
While I agree with much of what you said, I get the impression that the macOS memory pressure graph is sometimes a little too optimistic about its memory status, judging by this screen grab.
Despite Photos alone using well over 100 GB and the swap alone being over 70 GB, I don't think the memory pressure ever went into the red.Post the full Photos line; some of it is cut off. Based on what I’m looking at, it’s a horribly written app with an absolutely terrible memory leak. Or something else is wrong.Tangentially on topic only but this is my favourite screen grab of a memory leak (?) I had in Photos on my Intel Core i5-7600 iMac.
View attachment 2215462
While I agree with much of what you said, I get the impression that the macOS memory pressure graph is sometimes a little too optimistic about its memory status, judging by this screen grab.
If you quit and reopen it, does that solve the Photos issue?
DOS had first the ability to do manual loading which allowed the end user to make some decisions. Later, 3rd party memory managers were available and of course MS added one. Window reference was not about server software but Win 95, 98, 2000(which was better than the former two) etc. However, NT was best served by virtual memory handling as opposed to its handling of real memory which was mundane. It was a boast for microkernal over monolithic counterparts (Unix/Linux etc.). I am aware of this. However, the discussion was about real memory space not virtual or paging.
Intel Macs of recent seem to be less of a problem than the new M chip Macs. I was able to commit more resources easily with a 2015 MBP than the M1 Mini counterpart with same amount of RAM (with the OS being the only real difference and of course applications for ARM vs Intel).
Let me ask - have you seen how well MacOS with M1 or M2 chips allocates real memory to apps and if the app requires less, is the RAM truly released? - I do appreciate your input and enjoy the exchange.
It was an issue with trying to export the entire 50000 Photos database. They didn’t design it to do that properly, which seems really stupid.
Yes it seemed to be a horrible memory leak but my point wasn’t that. The point was that macOS never ever went to the red in memory pressure even though that single application had chewed up 70+ GB of swap in less than an hour. Thus, I’m not convinced that Apple’s memory pressure status reporting style is a truly accurate assessment.
I notice you didn’t post what “memory diag” is?
This is word soup. I’m sorry, but this doesn’t make sense. You said 32 bit Windows. Windows NT is 32 bit Windows, and it wasn’t “server software”; Windows NT Workstation wasn’t for servers.
Windows 2000 was simply Windows NT with a fresh coat a paint and PnP (amongst other innovations); it had outstanding memory usage and control, having all the benefits of a modern operating system because it was one. It shouldn’t be mentioned in the same breath as Win95/98/ME/DOS, which were DOS offshoots.
NT wasn’t “best served” by “virtual memory handling as opposd to real memory handling which was mundane“ - that’s word soup right there, a meaningless combination of words together that says nothing. It’s also just not true.
There is no such thing as “real memory space” in a modern operating system. If you want to have that discussion, stick with DOS comments. Everything else requires a pagefile, an MMU, and virtual memory, and how it uses that determines how physical RAM is used. Apps get a virtual address to use (a 2GB, 4GB, or xGB address to run in) which has nothing to do with actual RAM.
Your terms are flying all over the place.
This is the first I’ve seen anyone write this. Please can you identify a source, reference, or reasoning for this?
How exactly are you “committing” memory, given that’s an OS function that the user can’t control since (for Macs) OS9?
Define “released” in a modern operating system please?
Last edited:
Again, please post the FULL LINE of Photos. I suspect that we’d see that most of it was assigned a compressed VM pool, and the net effect in the Ux is nearly nil. Did Activity Monitor show excessive paging? If not, there’s really nothing to complain about; the OS did its job (in the face of a bad application that took too much memory).
Photos, assuming it’s properly written, is a database. A database reads from disk, and doesn’t keep everything it has in RAM at all times, just the working set. Even if you’re exporting 50,000 photos, I still think seeing 100GB of RAM in “use” is wrong, implying a memory leak or application error.
I'm not going to try exporting 50000 photos again and potentially risk damaging the database just for demonstration purposes. (When you do this, the application becomes unresponsive as it tries to process the request, and if it encounters the same issue, the only way out is either to wait for it to crash or else to manually kill it yourself.) It's clear Photos has not been properly written for this task, given its complete failure to perform it. (There are third party apps that can do this with minimal memory usage so I dunno WTF Photos is doing here.) So yes, of course it's "wrong" to have such crazy memory use. BTW, my solution was not to buy the third party app, but to break up the exports into a few thousand photos at a time, for a complete backup of the raw pix. And also to copy the database directory itself too as a backup for the Photos application data.
You'd be incorrect to say the effect to the Ux is nearly nil though. It slowed the machine, not surprisingly. The machine didn't become unusable, but if unusable is required for the memory pressure status to be in the red, then I'd say that's too late.
That's what I was asking; given that's the case, that's a badly written app. It should be able to handle requests like that. I suggest you file that as a bug towards Apple. https://developer.apple.com/bug-reporting/ is one way.
By 'Ux' that I was also referring to the OS's ability to satisfy said bad application's request for 100GB of application memory on a system with 16GB (or whatever you have, assumedly far less than 100GB). For an OS to be able to address that, the OS did its' job - it kept the rest of the system up and working.
As indicated in the screen grab, it's a 24 GB machine. Anyhow, I'll say again that I was not disputing the point the OS was doing its job or that Photos is the problem.
My only point simply was that the memory pressure status graph seems rather optimistic to me, given my experience with it... unless we are to interpret that encountering yellow any more than infrequently means you should get more memory soon and that encountering red at all in your regular workflow means you should probably upgrade asap. But in the latter case, I suspect a lot of the users already knew that since they likely would have encountered other problems like random app crashes. I say this because I've seen this reported a few times in reviews, where people have bought 8 GB M1 Mac minis and tried to do video editing on them. With heavier projects they got weird glitches and random crashes which completely disappeared when they upgraded to a machine with more memory. Interestingly, the memory pressure in those cases don't always hit red either, so again I wonder what's going on with that memory pressure status indicator.
Last edited:
Fair point. My belief is Activity Monitor is the best source of information on what's going on in the system for a typical user.
During the slowdown, another thing to look at is paging activity: were there excessive pagings going on at the time of the incident, suggesting a problem with memory demand?
The green/yellow/red chart is just one thing to look at.
I had multiple reasons to upgrade and not just for speed. Yes, I did replace the Fusion with an SSD and also upgraded to 32GB RAM. First, my iMac screen had pretty bad ghosting and had to use my screensaver about every minute or so when not used which got annoying. Second, speed of working with and editing movies with iMovie was difficult and slow on my late 2014 iMac 27". Performance is significantly faster for me on my M2 Pro Mac mini for video editing and also when working with photos. Safari is also noticeably faster than than my old machine. In addition, I replaced paired the Mac mini with the Apple Studio Display. I am admittedly not a heavy power user so my use case is not as hard on my machine as others.
No regrets... By the time I need 32GB of RAM, I would imagine I will also feel the need to upgrade the processor which likely is 3-5 years down the road.
Let me help you here so you can entertain the notion of being less rude. See the snapshot below. I told you what the app was called.
