New MBP, 16GB Ram & the tech press!

How much ram does a pro machine need? I absolutely understand that more is better and developers, GFX professionals ect need tons of the stuff. But how many of us are working on the next Marvel movie? Seriously?

A MacBook Air can edit 4k footage fine. I'm currently working with a 2012 MacBook Pro, the first retina one (at least until the new MBP arrives) , and I cut through 4k footage like butter, mostly FS7 stuff lately for high end corporate work and TV ads.

I get there's a disgruntled feeling about what Apple released (tho don't understand it myself) but I've just seen a bunch of tech commentaters claim that 16GB of ram isn't enough for parents to edit the sports videos they film of their kids. Absurd!

So I'm curious. I get by fine with 16GB but I know each of us is different? Those with iMac's or Mac Pro's loaded with 32GB or Ram or more. How does it help you?

Sure it helps, but with super fast flash storage in the new Macbook Pro RAM is not as big of a deal as it used to be. All I read on the internet is about how people are disappointed by the new Macbook Pros, how they fall short of their expectations... To be honest I don't understand why! Except for the price, for me they are pretty much perfect, I really can't see what all the complaining is about. I guarantee the one could cut a feature film without any major glitches on the top of the line new Macbook Pro. A Hollywood feature film too! Irrespective of whether you're using FCPX or Avid, you could actually cut a major motion picture on this device. The entire Lord of the Rings trilogy was edited on a much lower spec device. I'm not talking about rendering or special effects, I'm talking strictly about editing. Same goes for music, and music studios. As I've heard someone say, machines no longer affect the quality of what you do, only the person using them.

CBlakeston wrote: … 16GB of ram isn't enough for parents to edit the sports videos they film of their kids. …

Wott?? That is my domain! :silly:


The question is, and only real-world tests can answer that, what happens when the OS has access to 500 Gigs of SSD with 1.3gbps… is that a technical way to make Ram obsolete? (whoooo, my ignorance will trigger a discussion!)

Great answers. Thanks

I believe thats what intel is working on with their next gen SSDs that blur the distinction between storage space and memory.

The discussion RAM vs. SSD is going on for some years.

From my readings the outcome is:

DDR4 delivers an IO speed of up to 25 gigabytes/s vs. 1.3 gigabytes/s for the fastest ssd
And the latency of RAM is much smaller than SSD`s .By design and by connection.

SSDs still have a limited lifespan i terms of the amount of data written / write cycles.
So it wouldn´t be advisable to solely use SSD as main memory at the moment.

I believe that there may be changes in the relationship between RAM and storage but SSD isn´t a RAM replacement yet and not for the forseeable future.
RAM is also still developing quite fast.

I´m mostly happy with my 16 GB and OSX´s memory management works quite well.
But I still don´t understand the decision not to at least offer more. Buying an (very) expensive peace of hardware, it has to last some years.

Perhaps Apple is thinking (or knowing) that non-volatile RAM replacements will come in the near future and it´s already adapting it´s system to that?

nils.dettmann wrote: But I still don´t understand the decision not to at least offer more.

It's purely a chipset issue. Intel don't make Skylake low power chipsets with DDR4 support. 16GB is the max the Skylake chipset Apple uses will allow. Other laptop manufacturers get around this by using a 3rd party chipset. But that doesn't qualify for Intels low power mode - so the battery wouldn't last anywhere near as long. I read in a stat somewhere if it where to use DD4 memory it would make the memory 7% faster. Not the end of the world.

Next intel chipsets are Kabylake this time next year. But they sill don't support it either. Intel won't have DD4 memory for their mobile CPUs until the chipset after that, Canonlake or possibly it will be pushed to the next chipset still, Coffeelake.

Which puts 32GB MacBook Pro's at around 2018/2019. Probably in time for the next major refresh.

I totally agree with Nils about Ram vs flash drives, technically flash is not the same as what most folks think of SATA based ssd drives. Flash uses PCIe directly without the SATA protocol limitations.
The pathway for data is to move data to RAM where both the CPU and somewhat the GPU has access and the bus channels are totally separate from the PCIe bus. I too do not see this changing anytime in the near future.
Fortunately, for the OP's original question of how much RAM do you really need can be answered in Activity Monitor. Your individual needs will vary depending on way too many factors and will differ from everyone else's needs so really no "Universal" answer. Of course more is always "Better" and I always recommend to max out RAM for video editing.
Open Activity Monitor while editing, see if you have maxed out RAM in the "Wired" section of the "Memory" tab and check if you have a high number of Swap Used (Pages swapped). This is an indicator of when the computer has to "Write" data from RAM to drive and when it has to retrieve that data back to RAM.
If you find that you have a high Swap count, make sure to close all other apps that you do not need to use while editing and that you do not have other User's logged in even if inactive. This will free up RAM. If you still see large Swap Used, try to Shut down and re-boot your computer, this flushes all files from RAM and gives a clean restart. Some apps just don't release RAM or the computer will glitch and hang onto RAM data improperly.
CBlakeston is correct about the 16GB limit is due to the Intel Skylake chipset used in the new MBP's. Blame Intel not Apple. There is also a total wattage use for different chipsets in laptops that can overheat them as well as the aforementioned battery life. These are just some of the limitations of mobile chipsets vs say the desktop or xeon chipsets.
Hey you always have Proxy if needed.

Happy Editing Everyone, Greg

nils.dettmann wrote: The discussion RAM vs. SSD is going on for some years.
From my readings the outcome is: …

Thanks, Nils, for sharing…! Interesting facts!
(yes, I do see you )

On relaunch, I often notice 'fragments', old 'images' in browsers - so there IS something going on in terms of memory-management.

Simple asked:
10x faster is an impressive number, no doubt.
But do I NOTICE the difference of Ram and gbps-fast flashMem?

My ol' Mantra:
by specs and benchmarks my 4y MacMini is a pocket-calculator;
… but in real-life, I use it for 4k-multicam, or 90min projects, or…
yes, anecdotical evidence, but (my) reality.

I looked at the specs (and custom options) and thought "WOW! You can get it with a 4GB Graphics Card now! Amazing!"
I'm quite convinced that for FCPX especially the faster and with 4x the memory of my current rMBP's graphic card the new MBP would be quite an upgrade! And the faster graphics card probably makes a lot more real world difference that if it had 32gb ram...

Thats what i'm looking forward too. The CPU looks to be about the same as the 2.6ghz in my 2012 MBP. The new one is just hugely more efficient for longer battery life. But the GPU is at least 3x faster for me. Plus 4x the memory. Looking forward to see what it can do.

… real world test:
www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=6355

I agree with you. But have had twitter exchanges tonight with an editor who insists he can't edit RED uncompressed footage for the US election on a MBP because the CPUs are too wimpy and I'm not a 'Pro' because he has tripods that cost more then my camera. So what do I know

CBlakeston wrote: …So what do I know

a) how can your 'friend' know? The new MBp are not avail yet …

b) you know for example honorable forum member Ronny Courtens, who would teach that guy, with the endurance of a Buddhist monk and the knowledge of a complete wiki-backup, what can be done and what not.

Never judge a computer by its specs …

How could he know? Maybe he's psychic?

He primarily seems pissed - like many - that Apple didn't break the laws of whats possible with current chipsets / thermal limitations and create the laptop he feels he's entitled too.

… just today found this comparison video:

Great video

Here's one that was suggested after watching that. Editing 4K footage on an 8GB one port MacBook.

CBlakeston wrote: an editor who insists he can't edit RED uncompressed footage for the US election on a MBP because the CPUs are too wimpy and I'm not a 'Pro' because he has tripods that cost more then my camera.

That's ridiculous. I've edited RED footage on a 2011 Macbook Pro! What is he talking about? People are whining too much! If they were expecting a gaming lap top with extremely high specifications that had a battery life of 90 minutes... Sorry, Apple never does that, that's MSI's domain. Ever since I can remember PC laptops had higher specs on paper. I remember when Toshiba had quad core processors and Macbook Pro still had Core 2 Duo and it was still better. Also, every article on the new MBP mentions that Apple doesn't "think different" anymore... What? They've dumped all other ports and put four USB-C with Thunderbolt 3! No other laptop has 4 USB-C ports with thunderbolt 3, and no other ports. So, they are still quite different! Maybe not the way some would like them to be different, but just look at FCPX. It's pretty damn different from other NLEs. One thing that's sure about Apple is that they are not afraid to let go of the past, and nudge everyone and everything to the future. I'm not a fan boy, I'm just a very satisfied user of their products.

And if your editor friend has more expensive tripods that your cameras, I don't think that he's really an editor then. I don't think Thelma Schoonmaker and Walter Murch care too much for tripods. That guy is a videographer.

Also, the new Microsoft Surface Studio looks good and everybody is drooling about it but it has one crucial flaw. It runs on Windows! Sorry but never again. I'd rather switch to Linux.

My boss is one of those that is complaining. The only video he edits is from his Phantom 4. Last month he was complaining that he could not get the 4K video to even play on his laptop. Since his laptop has a Nividia card I asked him if he was using the CUDA drivers. He didn't even know they existed. Well once he installed the CUDA he was able to edit and play his drone footage in real time.

To many people it does not matter what Apple creates, they will always have a complaint and will push their dislike online to get as many other people riled up. If it came down to me having to use Windows and a Dell computer to edit video I think I would just quit using computers altogether. I am 4 years away from retiring and do not need the frustration and stress of trying to use some inferior product.

the CPUs are too wimpy

Um, FCPX uses the GPUs to handle that... (sigh)