Mac mini upgrade for photo editing

[GreenBeans84]

Hello guys, I have a 2018 Mac Mini 3.6ghz i3 with 16gb ram (the base model + extra ram). I initially got the computer back in 2018 for development purposes and it's fine for that.

Recently I've been doing a lot more photography editing raw files in Lightroom and Photoshop. For basic editing on single photographs it is ok although a little sluggish. It becomes very slow and quite frustrating for more advanced editing e.g. stitching panos, focus stacking, blending bracketed exposures in photoshop etc.. What would be most beneficial upgrade for this use case? More ram, dedicated graphics card, faster processor or something else? I'm looking at either trading it in for a new Mac Mini or keeping my current one and upgrading the graphics card/ram if this would be helpful. An iMac may be an option too.

My current camera shoots 24mp images.

 

[cupcakes2000]

Hello guys, I have a 2018 Mac Mini 3.6ghz i3 with 16gb ram (the base model + extra ram). I initially got the computer back in 2018 for development purposes and it's fine for that.

Recently I've been doing a lot more photography editing raw files in Lightroom and Photoshop. For basic editing on single photographs it is ok although a little sluggish. It becomes very slow and quite frustrating for more advanced editing e.g. stitching panos, focus stacking, blending bracketed exposures in photoshop etc.. What would be most beneficial upgrade for this use case? More ram, dedicated graphics card, faster processor or something else? I'm looking at either trading it in for a new Mac Mini or keeping my current one and upgrading the graphics card/ram if this would be helpful. An iMac may be an option too.

My current camera shoots 24mp images.

More ram plus fast ssd (if it’s a spinning hd) would be the best upgrade in your case.
The processor is the problem though, so if you can change the system that’s a better choice. I use a 2018 i7 mini with 32gb of ram and it’s fine, if you’re relying on Intel stuff - or else a 16gb m1 version would work brilliantly and is the best option really.

 

[GreenBeans84]

Thanks for the reply, yes it does seem an upgrade is probably the best option + it is coming to the end of the warranty period now anyway. Between the M1 and i7 version which would be best? I did noticed the M1 version only goes up to 16GB, will this be enough for stitching say 5~7 raw images with possibly some exposure blending?

 

[Boyd01]

If CPU is the bottleneck, I belive the i7 2018 Mini is about twice as fast as your i3. I have a maxxed-out i7 with 64gb and 2tb SSD, plus a 2tb external Samsung T7. Have been very pleased with this, coming from a 2012 2.6ghz quad-core i7 2012 Mini. I work with video and do some photoshop but not as intensive as your usage. Got the 64gb RAM because I also run Windows and MacOS virtual machines, not sure how much that would help with Photoshop but have heard it is RAM-hungry.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I have a similar age Mac Mini and it does fine on PS & LR.

My understanding is the M1 chip uses less RAM than Intel, so it doesn't need as much. If you were buying new, I'd go with the M1. If you are looking at second hand, then depends on the price. I assume you have an SSD hard drive? That will give you a performance boost. But upgrading the 2018 model isn't as easy as some of the older ones. Not impossible, just not as user friendly. But if you increased your RAM and did an SSD upgrade, the i3 chip will still be the bottleneck.

 

[GreenBeans84]

Yeah my i3 has a 512gb SSD so loading images, programs etc is fast and not an issue. It seems like Adobe has updated Photoshop for M1 macs recently with performance enhancements so I think I am leaning towards getting the 16gb M1.

 

[Fishrrman]

It may not be "the hardware".

I'm not a big Adobe user, but have not there long been complaints that Adobe stuff "runs slow" due to the way the software itself is written?

In other words, Adobe stuff tends to "run on the slow side" regardless of the hardware.

 

[GreenBeans84]

It may not be "the hardware".

I'm not a big Adobe user, but have not there long been complaints that Adobe stuff "runs slow" due to the way the software itself is written?

In other words, Adobe stuff tends to "run on the slow side" regardless of the hardware.

I did try some other raw editors but found most of them were slower than Lightroom or didn't have the features I needed. For now I'm stuck with Adobe but I think which ever software I use I need a bit more power. Kinda hoping that Affinity come out with some DAM/Lightroom replacement soon.

 

[Slartibart]

I did noticed the M1 version only goes up to 16GB, will this be enough for stitching say 5~7 raw images with possibly some exposure blending?

it does. I do this with full format RAWs quite often.

 

[jz0309]

EDIT: I just noticed hat I omitted a key word: NOT - I meant to say "M1/16GB will NOT be the longterm answer ...", corrected below - oopsie, sorry

I think a M1 with its 16GB RAM limitation will NOT be the longterm answer for you, as you have described you have only recently started with editing RAW files so most likely you will do a lot more going forward. PS in particular is a RAM hungry app, M! does not "resolve" that.
If I were you, I'd get a i7 mini with 32GB, refurb or maybe used. I would keep internal SSD at 512, I keep all my RAW files on an external 2GB SSD (T7 spec) and that I plenty fast, that way whatever computer you'll get in the future, you have your photos "indecently" stored from the internal SSD.
I would wait a year or so, and then re-assess your needs and make decisions then, M2 (or whatever name) mini or whatever might be available.

and just for the record, I am not anti-M1, as a matter of fact I just yesterday setup a M1 MBA (16GB, 512) to replace my 15 MBP as my travel laptop, it's a fantastic computer thus far

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I don’t think you’ll have a lot of luck with an eGPU right now. You’d have an easier time finding solid gold hen’s teeth. I have my doubts it’s the CPU alone. I think any GPU-accelerated tasks are just bogging down on the Intel GPU. The M1 at 16GB might be your best bet, but it may not be the long-haul solution. Adobe claims up to a 50% performance gain in photoshop over previous generation Mac. The GPU is much faster, which I think would cut the lag.

 

[GreenBeans84]

Seems like the latest builds of Photoshop and Lightroom are more efficient and run better on the M1 even with just 8gb of ram according to this video:

I think I will take the plunge and go with that.

 

[jz0309]

Seems like the latest builds of Photoshop and Lightroom are more efficient and run better on the M1 even with just 8gb of ram according to this video:

I think I will take the plunge and go with that.

Like I have said in another thread ( #114 ) earlier today: Adobe did not create LR/PS for "entry level" people ...
The current M1 based Macs have taken the "entry level" places in the lineup ...
PS is known to be a RAM hog, and Adobe will continue to add features, and that "RAM hungriness" will continue, they will not update their product so that they will run on "entry level" computers just as good as on "high end" computers.

Having said that, this week I received my M1 MBA (16GB, 8/8cores, 512 GB) that will replace my MBP as my travel laptop usage while taking photos when out and about. My initial observation is that it performs quite nicely, but thus far only dealt with jpg files, and as you, my camera is a 24MP FF ...

I do believe that if you want to keep your Mac for more than a couple years, 16GB will not suffice, you will have more and more photos and your own experience and needs will increase - I can go into my own personal experience here.

So, if you're willing to upgrade to a M2 (or whatever name it will have) soon after they become available, sure, go for it. If not, I'd either wait or get a refurb 32GB Intel one ...
just my 2 cents