Mac Mini M4 256GB vs 512GB?

[mcnallym]

Will give you my own experience. I do video editing but is essentially home, or editing tv recordings so movies that maybe 2-3 hours long. Usually work on 4 at a time.

Is 1080 resolution rather then 4K.

Out of my 32Gb then regularly hit just under 16gb used, memory pressure barely registers as anything but always green.

I went with the Studio as prefer to convert the video to ProRes, edit then export with FCP X and encode in Handbrake.

As there was no M1 Pro Mini then got the Studio as didn’t need the laptop as the base M1 didn’t have the ProRes hardware.

I give this so have background as to why the Studio.

I don’t find the 512Gb restrictive as all the actual data, ie TV, Music, FCP X library etc are all on the external SSD, or even mounted NAS shares.
In fact barely using it and fit well within a 256.

As such the Studio is overkill and if buying today would consider similar spec as in base M4 with 16/256. software I run uses the media engine so the lack of the extra CPU not an issue.
Whilst I look at the M4 mini and think would be nice, then absolutely no way do I need to think about replacement and probably won’t till the M10 series.

From your description then would be surprised if need more then 16gb even with 4K.

256SSD if use with external storage would be enough and yes it is slower than the 512SSD due to less modules used but it is still quick.
Does the difference in cost make a meaningful difference to complete the task and as this is for personal use it isn’t as if this is for commercial where if get he task quicker can get more done.

Here in UK

M4 16/256 is 599
M4 24/512 is 999

So extra £400 or roughly 2/3 of the base mini price which if put away would go a long way to a replacement machine, with no commercial payoff as in can get more work done with the quicker machine as this is personal use.

Will it last 13 years, I doubt it but i will have the £400 as a good part of the replacement anyway when it is needed.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Honestly Jacques, it will do a great job for you.
Of course you can spend more, it will be faster, by seconds!!!

This forum is famous for creating RAM anxiety, members will try their best to convince you that anything less than 96Gb will mean your computer is a joke. They’re plain wrong for your use case.

If you’re keeping it for thirteen years then be mindful that home movies rendered at 4K and 8K take up space on your hard drive, that the apps you use will get bigger.

Personally I want all my movies together, not held on some random drive I stored in a drawer once.

Honestly Jacques, it will do a great job for you.
Of course you can spend more, it will be faster, by seconds!!!

This forum is famous for creating RAM anxiety, members will try their best to convince you that anything less than 96Gb will mean your computer is a joke. They’re plain wrong for your use case.

If you’re keeping it for thirteen years then be mindful that home movies rendered at 4K and 8K take up space on your hard drive, that the apps you use will get bigger.

Personally I want all my movies together, not held on some random drive I stored in a drawer once.

Your post that a base M4 chip with 16 GB of RAM and a 512 GB SSD is OK if "keeping it for thirteen years" is bad advice, flat wrong.

Per the OP: "I edit short videos with Davinci Resolve (maximum 6 minutes and 4K being the highest resolution) for YouTube and social media and do some simple Fusion effects. I also edit my photos with Affinity Photo and RAW with DxO PhotoLab."

Apps like those - and the Mac OS - will not stand still for the coming years of a new computer's life cycle even if a user's usage was to manage to stand still for the coming years.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Will give you my own experience. I do video editing but is essentially home, or editing tv recordings so movies that maybe 2-3 hours long. Usually work on 4 at a time.

Is 1080 resolution rather then 4K.

Out of my 32Gb then regularly hit just under 16gb used, memory pressure barely registers as anything but always green.

I went with the Studio as prefer to convert the video to ProRes, edit then export with FCP X and encode in Handbrake.

As there was no M1 Pro Mini then got the Studio as didn’t need the laptop as the base M1 didn’t have the ProRes hardware.

I give this so have background as to why the Studio.

I don’t find the 512Gb restrictive as all the actual data, ie TV, Music, FCP X library etc are all on the external SSD, or even mounted NAS shares.
In fact barely using it and fit well within a 256.

As such the Studio is overkill and if buying today would consider similar spec as in base M4 with 16/256. software I run uses the media engine so the lack of the extra CPU not an issue.
Whilst I look at the M4 mini and think would be nice, then absolutely no way do I need to think about replacement and probably won’t till the M10 series.

From your description then would be surprised if need more then 16gb even with 4K.

256SSD if use with external storage would be enough and yes it is slower than the 512SSD due to less modules used but it is still quick.
Does the difference in cost make a meaningful difference to complete the task and as this is for personal use it isn’t as if this is for commercial where if get he task quicker can get more done.

Here in UK

M4 16/256 is 599
M4 24/512 is 999

So extra £400 or roughly 2/3 of the base mini price which if put away would go a long way to a replacement machine, with no commercial payoff as in can get more work done with the quicker machine as this is personal use.

Will it last 13 years, I doubt it but i will have the £400 as a good part of the replacement anyway when it is needed.

So your 2024 workflow of 1080p runs at ~16 GB RAM. By 2026 if not sooner the same workflow will run at 24-32 GB RAM. You will be happy then to have 32 GB and may wish you had more. Apps and the Mac OS have made good use of more and more RAM every year for 40 years now.

However with a Studio (the high end with a max chip) even after it gets into regularly swapping to SSD your 32 GB should remain workable for quite a while. The OP is discussing a Mac Mini (the low end with a base chip) that will not perform like your Studio will. The max chip boxes provide substantially stronger performance than the base chip boxes do.

 

[ForkHandles]

Your post that a base M4 chip with 16 GB of RAM and a 512 GB SSD is OK if "keeping it for thirteen years" is bad advice, flat wrong.

Per the OP: "I edit short videos with Davinci Resolve (maximum 6 minutes and 4K being the highest resolution) for YouTube and social media and do some simple Fusion effects. I also edit my photos with Affinity Photo and RAW with DxO PhotoLab."

Apps like those - and the Mac OS - will not stand still for the coming years of a new computer's life cycle even if a user's usage was to manage to stand still for the coming years.

Thanks for the input Allen. You do realise that the OP had his last machine for 13 years, getting it to do exactly what he wants. It's about context. The OP has a budget, he is not a professional, he is not trying to run a media empire, he is not working at the cutting edge of video production, his Golden Globe nomination is not likely to happen anytime soon, Davinci is not seeking to hire him as a consultant to review their software, Spielberg is not frantically searching for his LinkedIn to edit the AVATAR 3.

He just wants to make simple movies and it strikes me he doesn't want to spend a ton on frills that won't alter his effective workflow.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Thanks for the input Allen. You do realise that the OP had his last machine for 13 years, getting it to do exactly what he wants. It's about context. The OP has a budget, he is not a professional, he is not trying to run a media empire, he is not working at the cutting edge of video production, his Golden Globe nomination is not likely to happen anytime soon, Davinci is not seeking to hire him as a consultant to review their software, Spielberg is not frantically searching for his LinkedIn to edit the AVATAR 3.

He just wants to make simple movies and it strikes me he doesn't want to spend a ton on frills that won't alter his effective workflow.

RAM is not a "frill that won't alter his effective workflow." Please, read up on Apple's Unified Memory Architecture. UMA is one of the reasons M-series SoC performs so very well. Also IMO AI will be becoming more and more integrated into the apps of images work, with a concomitant increase in demands on RAM.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

The idea that with the apps/usage cited one can "Pay $500 today and get a computer that will be perfectly fine for the next seven years or more" using Apple's lowest-end computer and base 16 GB RAM is absurd. Those apps will be driving a base Mac Mini to suboptimal performance very quickly. Anyone who thinks images apps "will be perfectly fine" in 7 years with 16 GB RAM really needs to analyze better.

Mac OS is very solid. So solid that it makes all kinds of suboptimal hardware run, but just running is not perfectly fine.

Complete nonsense.
8GB of RAM was a default option from Apple from 2012 to 2024. If you bought a Mac with 8 GB of RAM in 2012, you could still use that machine in 2020 just fine.
If you bought a Mac with 8 GB of RAM in 2020, you can probably still use it today.
16 GB is the new default, and could easily be the new default for the next 12 years.
This idea that Apple‘s base models become unusable is just ridiculous, especially today.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

I can tell you that 16GB of RAM will not be enough for video editing in premiere pro - even photo editing in Lightroom. Does it work flawlessly? Yes! But you will have quite a bit of memory swapping going on. I'm editing on Premiere right now and I'm using 17-18GB of RAM. So while I have a M2 Pro Mac mini 16/512 - when I upgrade I'll be getting AT LEAST 24 GB of RAM - if not more.

macOS dynamically uses the amount of RAM that it has, meaning that no matter which specification you have it will use as much as it wants.
Meaning, if you upgrade your 16 GB Mac to a 24 GB Mac and then continue to stare at activity monitor, you’ll notice that it still uses swap and gobbles up RAM.
There are plenty of threads about it, even people with 64 GB of RAM always ask why macOS seems to always use at least 40 even with the smallest tasks.
This is why.
Upgrading the ram does not mean that swap will not be used, especially with macOS.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Complete nonsense.
8GB of RAM was a default option from Apple from 2012 to 2024. If you bought a Mac with 8 GB of RAM in 2012, you could still use that machine in 2020 just fine.
If you bought a Mac with 8 GB of RAM in 2020, you can probably still use it today.
16 GB is the new default, and could easily be the new default for the next 12 years.
This idea that Apple‘s base models become unusable is just ridiculous, especially today.

Complete nonsense.
8GB of RAM was a default option from Apple from 2012 to 2024. If you bought a Mac with 8 GB of RAM in 2012, you could still use that machine in 2020 just fine.
If you bought a Mac with 8 GB of RAM in 2020, you can probably still use it today.
16 GB is the new default, and could easily be the new default for the next 12 years.
This idea that Apple‘s base models become unusable is just ridiculous, especially today.

Apple's low end base RAM has never been optimal for images workflow, even though the OS will often make anything work. Apparently you failed to read the OP that referenced "...Fusion effects. I also edit my photos with Affinity Photo and RAW with DxO PhotoLab."

I am one of the few here that supported Apple's offering just 8 GB base RAM. My reasoning is that for a few folks (granny with just email; and schools with tightly managed K-12 boxes) spending less for minimal RAM makes sense. However it does not make sense for heavier usages. Intentionally buying just 16 GB RAM to run "...Fusion effects... ...Affinity Photo and RAW with DxO PhotoLab" 2025-2035 would be absurd. Even thouigh yes the Mac OS will make it work today.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

macOS dynamically uses the amount of RAM that it has, meaning that no matter which specification you have it will use as much as it wants.
Meaning, if you upgrade your 16 GB Mac to a 24 GB Mac and then continue to stare at activity monitor, you’ll notice that it still uses swap and gobbles up RAM.
There are plenty of threads about it, even people with 64 GB of RAM always ask why macOS seems to always use at least 40 even with the smallest tasks.
This is why.
Upgrading the ram does not mean that swap will not be used, especially with macOS.

The point is that using RAM is a good thing, a very powerful way to compute. The Unified Memory Architecture of Apple's SoC and the Mac OS are optimizing the process of computing. The Mac OS caches, swaps, etc. to optimize; additional RAM facilitating more optimal computing. We buy these Macs to compute with.

Also note that your statement about the Mac OS that "no matter which specification you have it will use as much as it wants" is incorrect. The Mac OS and Unified Memory Architecture might want to use 30 GB of RAM, but if 16 GB is all the RAM that is available it would only be able to use that 16 GB of RAM. The Mac OS would be forced to operate sub-optimally to get its computing done. Swapping to much slower SSD usage is one of the less effective methodologies the Mac OS uses to cope with less than ideal RAM.

Larger amounts of RAM allow the OS to optimize its computing. When we observe more RAM being utilized on Macs with more RAM available that is the Mac OS optimizing, a good thing.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

Apple's low end base RAM has never been optimal for images workflow, even though the OS will often make anything work. Apparently you failed to read the OP that referenced "...Fusion effects. I also edit my photos with Affinity Photo and RAW with DxO PhotoLab."

I am one of the few here that supported Apple's offering just 8 GB base RAM. My reasoning is that for a few folks (granny with just email; and schools with tightly managed K-12 boxes) spending less for minimal RAM makes sense. However it does not make sense for heavier usages. Intentionally buying just 16 GB RAM to run "...Fusion effects... ...Affinity Photo and RAW with DxO PhotoLab" 2025-2035 would be absurd. Even thouigh yes the Mac OS will make it work today.

It’s not that absurd when an extra 8 GB of RAM cost you half of an entire computer.
If (and this is your logic not mine) 16GB won’t be enough 5 to 10 years from now, what makes you say 24 will?
And once again, almost everyone is ignoring the original post, which specifically said one of the main reasons they were thinking about the Mac mini was it’s affordability.
24 GB of RAM adds on another $200, 512 GB of storage is another $200. We are getting very close to going from something that’s half a grand to something that’s gonna cost over 1000, 1500, 2000… why not go all the way to $3000?

And once again, there are plenty of real world examples of people using even machines from five years ago with 8 GB of RAM for photo editing and… they get the job done.
If an M1 with 8 GB of RAM from 2020 can photo edit, the M4 with 16 GB of RAM in 2025 definitely can.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

The point is that using RAM is a good thing, a very powerful way to compute. The Unified Memory Architecture of Apple's SoC and the Mac OS are optimizing the process of computing. The Mac OS caches, swaps, etc. to optimize; additional RAM facilitating more optimal computing. We buy these Macs to compute with.

Yes, point being that just because your Mac shows that it’s using close to all of your RAM, 16 GB or otherwise, doesn’t necessarily mean that you need to upgrade it.
Just because you look at activity monitor and it says that it’s using 15 of your 16 GB of RAM does not necessarily mean much. You could upgrade that to 24 GB, open activity monitor with the exact same tasks running and it’s using 23 of your 24 GB.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that this task couldn’t be completed with less than 23GB.
You can do those exact same tasks on a computer with 32 GB of RAM, and you’ll probably notice it hovers around 25-30 GB.
People put way too much stock into the pure numbers of activity monitor when they don’t really tell you much.
You don’t really have to look far to find people seeing this in action.
Yes, it is always better to have more RAM than you necessarily need, but recommending people Max out their specifications, even if they won’t use any of the extra power needed is just not particularly helpful, especially when it comes to the wallet.

 

[Jacques Wegier]

to run "...Fusion effects... ...Affinity Photo and RAW with DxO PhotoLab"

Thanks for the input. Sure, more RAM is better.

Small correction: I edit short videos with Davinci Resolve (maximum 6 minutes) with some simple Fusion effects.

DxO Photolab 8 recommended system configuration is 16GB (minimum is 8GB)

Affinity Photo 2 recommended RAM is 4 GB (minimum) and 16 GB (recommended)
According to Affinity photo website, "only users who make use of extremely large image files (50-megapixel or higher RAW files – with dozens of layers, adjustment layers, and masks) will need 32GB or more"

 

[Allen_Wentz]

It’s not that absurd when an extra 8 GB of RAM cost you half of an entire computer.
If (and this is your logic not mine) 16GB won’t be enough 5 to 10 years from now, what makes you say 24 will?
And once again, almost everyone is ignoring the original post, which specifically said one of the main reasons they were thinking about the Mac mini was it’s affordability.
24 GB of RAM adds on another $200, 512 GB of storage is another $200. We are getting very close to going from something that’s half a grand to something that’s gonna cost over 1000, 1500, 2000… why not go all the way to $3000?

And once again, there are plenty of real world examples of people using even machines from five years ago with 8 GB of RAM for photo editing and… they get the job done.
If an M1 with 8 GB of RAM from 2020 can photo edit, the M4 with 16 GB of RAM in 2025 definitely can.

We fully agree that "If an M1 with 8 GB of RAM from 2020 can photo edit, the M4 with 16 GB of RAM in 2025 definitely can." The question however relates to how a new box purchased for image editing 2025-2035 should be configured. IMO a base Mac Mini is inappropriate that usage for the reasons already enumerated ad nauseam; you disagree.

As regards "If (and this is your logic not mine) 16GB won’t be enough 5 to 10 years from now, what makes you say 24 will?" I do not suggest that 24 GB will be enough 5 to 10 years from now. I only say that 16 GB will be less good.

Certainly one strategy is to buy the great value base 16 GB M4 Mac Mini now and see what happens over time. That is a fine purchase strategy IMO, so long as there is no ten year life cycle expectation. Best low budget strategy of all might be to wait for M4 Studios to come out and then buy an M2 Studio.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

We fully agree that "If an M1 with 8 GB of RAM from 2020 can photo edit, the M4 with 16 GB of RAM in 2025 definitely can." The question however relates to how a new box purchased for image editing 2025-2035 should be configured. IMO a base Mac Mini is inappropriate that usage for the reasons already enumerated ad nauseam; you disagree.

As regards "If (and this is your logic not mine) 16GB won’t be enough 5 to 10 years from now, what makes you say 24 will?" I do not suggest that 24 GB will be enough 5 to 10 years from now. I only say that 16 GB will be less good.

Certainly one strategy is to buy the great value base 16 GB M4 Mac Mini now and see what happens over time. That is a fine purchase strategy IMO, so long as there is no ten year life cycle expectation. Best low budget strategy of all might be to wait for M4 Studios to come out and then buy an M2 Studio.

I guess my question would be, why do you expect the average user demands of RAM to change so heavily between 2025 and 2035, when they absolutely have not changed in the past 13 years?
Base 15 inch MacBook Pro in 2012: 8 GB of RAM, 256 GB of storage.
Base 2015 15 inch MacBook Pro: 8 GB of RAM, 256 GB of storage.
Base 2020 MacBook Pro: 8 GB of RAM, 256 GB of storage.
Base 2023 MacBook Pro: 8 GB of ram, 512 GB of storage.

So why are we expecting 16 GB to become so unusable all of a sudden?
Apple Intelligence? Completely unpredictable, easily could be discontinued if it’s not successful within the next couple years, oh… and runs machines from five years ago with 8 GB of RAM.

Also, even assuming that a computer 10 years from now with 16 GB of RAM isn’t usable… then, wouldn’t it make sense to save that money they would spend today on upgrades for just a new computer a decade from now? The 2035 Mac mini is going to be more capable in 2035 than even a top of the line 2025 Mac mini will be.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Thanks for the input. Sure, more RAM is better.

Small correction: I edit short videos with Davinci Resolve (maximum 6 minutes) with some simple Fusion effects.

DxO Photolab 8 recommended system configuration is 16GB (minimum is 8GB)

Affinity Photo 2 recommended RAM is 4 GB (minimum) and 16 GB (recommended)
According to Affinity photo website, "only users who make use of extremely large image files (50-megapixel or higher RAW files – with dozens of layers, adjustment layers, and masks) will need 32GB or more"

Note that those are all today or even past RAM references, probably posted quite a while ago. Any new box will not be used today. So we must only consider the future life cycle of the new box as we plan a new purchase.

Note also that vendors try not to scare off users as they list their RAM requirements. E.g. although Affinity references "extremely large image files (50-megapixel or higher RAW files," just a basic 2024 iPhone RAW capture already may be ~80 MB without any added layers.

Also note that a vendor shows the [old] RAM requirements of just their own app. One app. When we work we run multiple apps concurrently which uses more RAM.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

I guess my question would be, why do you expect the average user demands of RAM to change so heavily between 2025 and 2035, when they absolutely have not changed in the past 13 years?

You ask "I guess my question would be, why do you expect the average user demands of RAM to change so heavily between 2025 and 2035, when they absolutely have not changed in the past 13 years?" then list past base RAM.

My answer is that you are simply wrong when you suggest that RAM demands have not changed over the past 13 years, and then list Apple's minimum base RAM [you disingenuously skipped listing 2024 when base RAM doubled] as suggestive of users' actual RAM needs. It is not. Much more realistic is to look at Apple increasing the maximum available RAM in laptops from 16 GB 128 GB in 8 years, an 8x increase in 8 years. Or ask users like me.

But such numbers although useful are just history. Better still is for each of us to study up on Apple's Unified Memory Architecture, review image apps historical RAM usage increases, guess about AI's likely impact on RAM demands, decide on desired life cycle and then develop our own expectations for what RAM is appropriate to achieve our long term plan.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

You ask "I guess my question would be, why do you expect the average user demands of RAM to change so heavily between 2025 and 2035, when they absolutely have not changed in the past 13 years?" then list past base RAM.

My answer is that you are simply wrong when you suggest that RAM demands have not changed over the past 13 years, and then list Apple's minimum base RAM [you disingenuously skipped listing 2024 when base RAM doubled] as suggestive of users' actual RAM needs. It is not. Much more realistic is to look at Apple increasing the maximum available RAM in laptops from 16 GB 128 GB in 8 years, an 8x increase in 8 years. Or ask users like me.

But such numbers although useful are just history. Better still is for each of us to study up on Apple's Unified Memory Architecture, review image apps historical RAM usage increases, guess about AI's likely impact on RAM demands, decide on desired life cycle and then develop our own expectations for what RAM is appropriate to achieve our long term plan.

I’m sticking with base models because they are the most commonly purchased amongst all groups.
Some countries don’t even have the high RAM build to order options available, and given that the OP hasn’t updated their computer in 13 years I’d assume their needs are necessarily such where they would need to go above the default.
And once again, there is the money factor, just because the M4 can have more than 16 GB of RAM doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s worth spending $200-400 to upgrade it.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

I’m sticking with base models because they are the most commonly purchased amongst all groups.
Some countries don’t even have the high RAM build to order options available, and given that the OP hasn’t updated their computer in 13 years I’d assume their needs are necessarily such where they would need to go above the default.
And once again, there is the money factor, just because the M4 can have more than 16 GB of RAM doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s worth spending $200-400 to upgrade it.

You are considering base models only. I am looking at working with images, which I have been doing for decades. My experience and others' experience back to the 20th century says A) RAM demands for images work constantly increases and B) base-level computers are seldom ideal for images work.

RAM usage is a constant part of Mac computing, much moreso than it was with Intel Macs. RAM is as integral to M-series Macs as tires are to a car. Even at the very lowest end (i.e. Mac mini) one should carefully analyze desired life cycle, apps and finances when choosing RAM. IMO for images work one wants more, not less, even at the lowest end Mac mini unless a really, really short life cycle is planned.

You are correct when you say "...there is the money factor, just because the M4 can have more than 16 GB of RAM doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s worth spending $200-400 to upgrade it." Sometimes one has no choice financially. In that case buy minimal SSD size and add external SSD capacity when needed. If one buys base RAM plan on only running one app at a time if possible. If one is like me and must multi-task among apps, buy more RAM when buying a new box. Or buy last generation to save money rather than buying less RAM to save money.

 

[mcnallym]

So your 2024 workflow of 1080p runs at ~16 GB RAM. By 2026 if not sooner the same workflow will run at 24-32 GB RAM. You will be happy then to have 32 GB and may wish you had more. Apps and the Mac OS have made good use of more and more RAM every year for 40 years now.

However with a Studio (the high end with a max chip) even after it gets into regularly swapping to SSD your 32 GB should remain workable for quite a while. The OP is discussing a Mac Mini (the low end with a base chip) that will not perform like your Studio will. The max chip boxes provide substantially stronger performance than the base chip boxes do.

Actually my workflow has been running at the 16gb mark since around 2013 when bought my Mac Pro 2010 second hand and upgraded to 3680 24Gb RAM and Sata SSD and Nvidia 680.

So around 11 years yet in 12 months somehow is going to jump in what it needs by 50%. I am not doing more editing in terms features or effects then did back in 2013 and don’t expect to be doing more effects in the videos in the next few years either.

Like the OP then is personal stuff not commercial work. If he was doing commercial editing then would suggest higher end however he isn’t. He also won’t be expecting it to be all singing all dancing in terms of performance.

We are not must get this done because have the next one to do for th next customer. As such neither of us using the machines to make a living. If it takes a bit longer to finish isn’t an issue. As using a 13 year old computer then even the base M4 with 16Gb is going to be a big improvement.

And I mostly use my iPad for all my daily things that want to do, so the Mac isn’t really multi-tasking whilst the editing being done. That being an original 9.7” iPad Pro.

I also get buy on upto 76Mbps Broadband without issue.

 

[Jacques Wegier]

Sometimes one has no choice financially. In that case buy minimal SSD size and add external SSD capacity when needed. If one buys base RAM plan on only running one app at a time if possible. If one is like me and must multi-task among apps, buy more RAM when buying a new box. Or buy last generation to save money rather than buying less RAM to save money.

Exactly. My budget is limited, and I want to purchase a Mac Mini M4 within my limitations. I am aware that it comes with limitations. No problem, if I have to multi-task while I am editing, I use my iPad Air.

 

[throAU]

Thanks for the input. Sure, more RAM is better.

Small correction: I edit short videos with Davinci Resolve (maximum 6 minutes) with some simple Fusion effects.

DxO Photolab 8 recommended system configuration is 16GB (minimum is 8GB)

Affinity Photo 2 recommended RAM is 4 GB (minimum) and 16 GB (recommended)
According to Affinity photo website, "only users who make use of extremely large image files (50-megapixel or higher RAW files – with dozens of layers, adjustment layers, and masks) will need 32GB or more"

The biggest thing to keep in mind in modern macOS for memory management is the memory pressure graph; it takes into account all of the factors and gives you an estimate of memory load; just looking at the swap number is not the full story.

I've run my old 16GB M1 Pro all day every day in the orange for memory pressure and it was still responsive (multiple virtual machines).

Make of that what you will. Yes more memory is better - but generally speaking, if you aren't seeing orange memory pressure you're nowhere near pushing the machine.

 

[giffut]

The only thing in activity monitor worth watching is the memory pressure. If it is yellow or red permanently, you need more RAM. Otherwise macos will utilize as much RAM as is present in your mac for caching.

Track your memory pressure while doing your most heavy lifting on your machine.

 

[TechRunner]

I bought a base M1 Mini in November 2020 looking to get 3-5 years of use from it. The 8/256 has worked great for me, but I've decided to upgrade (soon!) to an M4 MBA or MBP. I expect to get 5-7 years out of this upgrade, so I determined, even before Apple bumped base RAM to 16 GB, to get 8GB of RAM above the base model. So, I'll be jumping to 24GB of RAM.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Exactly. My budget is limited, and I want to purchase a Mac Mini M4 within my limitations. I am aware that it comes with limitations. No problem, if I have to multi-task while I am editing, I use my iPad Air.

The base Mac mini is a superb value. Once one starts upgrading it the value goes away. I generally recommend against the upgraded Pro Mac Minis, instead preferring the Studio if going above base Mac mini. It sounds like a base Mac mini from one of the discounters like Costco or Best Buy is the way to go; then buy an external SSD or two from OWC. But expect a reduced life cycle due to the 16 GB RAM.

Note that memory limitation issues can be minimized for a very long time (years) by minimizing the number of apps kept open.

P.S. Buy only top-quality cables rated for TB4 or better for your external SSDs. You will thank us later.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

The only thing in activity monitor worth watching is the memory pressure. If it is yellow or red permanently, you need more RAM. Otherwise macos will utilize as much RAM as is present in your mac for caching.

Track your memory pressure while doing your most heavy lifting on your machine.

Caching is not some RAM-wasting activity, it is a useful computing technique that the Mac OS uses. Suggesting that only "if it is yellow or red permanently, you need more RAM" is not really true. If one wants to be running apps most smoothly, then having some free RAM available most of the time for caching is a good thing.