Best Mac Studio configuration for photo (not vidoe) processing.

[Ed Constable]

Hi folks

I need to replace my struggling desktop. My most computing-intensive tasks use Lightroom Classic, Topaz Photo AI and DXO Photolab Elite. I have an extensive LR library (400k+ images) and use Sony A1 ii in uncompressed or lossless compressed RAW mode. I am often bulk-processing images.

I am vacillating between the Mac Studio with the M4 Max or the M3 Ultra processor. In either case, I would max out on CPU and GRU cores and compromise on a 4TB SSD.

The beast will drive two Apple Studio Displays. The library is resident on an external USB-C drive, but I usually have the current year on the internal SSD.

Has anyone had direct experience with these configurations? I want real-life experience, not what AI generates.

Many thanks in advance.

Ed

 

[NicholasD]

Hi folks

I need to replace my struggling desktop. My most computing-intensive tasks use Lightroom Classic, Topaz Photo AI and DXO Photolab Elite. I have an extensive LR library (400k+ images) and use Sony A1 ii in uncompressed or lossless compressed RAW mode. I am often bulk-processing images.

I am vacillating between the Mac Studio with the M4 Max or the M3 Ultra processor. In either case, I would max out on CPU and GRU cores and compromise on a 4TB SSD.

The beast will drive two Apple Studio Displays. The library is resident on an external USB-C drive, but I usually have the current year on the internal SSD.

Has anyone had direct experience with these configurations? I want real-life experience, not what AI generates.

Many thanks in advance.

Ed

One person's opinion - I'd lean towards an M4 Max coupled with 40 core GPU. That gives options for 48 or 64 GB of RAM. An M3 Ultra (96 GB RAM / 60 core GPU / 4TB) is $5000 while an M4 Max (64 GB RAM / 40 core GPU / 4 TB) is $3900. Unless you're doing extensive video work or high end stitching, I'm not sure the extra $1000 bucks for the Ultra is warranted. In fact, I'd consider limiting internal storage to 2TB and using a robust external storage arrangement. I think 64 GB RAM coupled with 40 core GPU (and whatever amount of internal storage you decide) will be more than sufficient given your stated use case.

I have an M2 Max Studio w/ 32 GB of RAM and it works fine w/ LR denoise and DxO Deep Prime noise reduction (roughly 10 seconds per image). I work with 24 MP RAW files in LR and PS. No video. Plenty of noise reduction and AI generative remove. Works fine for me.

Thom Hogan has published a nice Mac summary for photographers.

Nick

 

[Daverich04]

There were a number of articles comparing the two when they first came out and the conclusion generally was M4 Max over M3 Ultra for Photoshop. Here’s one…

In 2025, Apple's M4 Max Mac Studio is All Photographers Really Need

Maybe the powerful M3 Ultra is not actually the best choice for every power user.

petapixel.com

 

[LarryRC]

Also consider a, same as the studio speced, 16” Macbook PRO which would get you a nice HDR display and would easily drive your 2 studio displays. The 16” has really good cooling and rarely needs the fans / throttling. I’m amazed at how much i enjoy the freedom to pick up the computer and work anywhere.

 

[Jacques Cornell]

Hi folks

I need to replace my struggling desktop. My most computing-intensive tasks use Lightroom Classic, Topaz Photo AI and DXO Photolab Elite. I have an extensive LR library (400k+ images) and use Sony A1 ii in uncompressed or lossless compressed RAW mode. I am often bulk-processing images.

I am vacillating between the Mac Studio with the M4 Max or the M3 Ultra processor. In either case, I would max out on CPU and GRU cores and compromise on a 4TB SSD.

The beast will drive two Apple Studio Displays. The library is resident on an external USB-C drive, but I usually have the current year on the internal SSD.

Has anyone had direct experience with these configurations? I want real-life experience, not what AI generates.

Many thanks in advance.

Ed

My event archive has about 250k images. I run LRC and PhotoLab, processing 300-2000 images at a time, comprising 26MP, 33MP and 61MP RAW files. I have two NEC PA322 32” 4K displays connected to an M1 Max Mac Studio with 32 GPU cores, 32GB RAM, and 2TB internal storage that I bought used 6 months ago for $1,000 and that can crank out finished JPEGs from a typical evening event in an hour using PhotoLab and DeepPRIME 3. I don’t feel any need for more horsepower than this.

Update: My new M4 MacBook Air with 24GB RAM and 512GB SSD is just as fast on DeepPRIME as my Mac Studio and M1 Pro MacBook Pro. OTOH, it takes about 3x-4x longer on Adobe's Denoise than my Mac Studio. Denoise really requires lots and lots of GPU cores, whereas DeepPRIME flies on Apple's Neural Engine, even on an entry-level Mac.

--
Event professional for 20+ years, travel & landscape enthusiast for 30+, stills-only.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 

[MarshallG]

The “best” could be the very most expensive, very fastest, or least expensive solution that gets the job done.

In my opinion, between the two machines you mention, I would choose the M4-based system, because it includes the newer Thunderbolt 5 interface. This will eventually double your SSD speeds.

 

[lighthunter80]

You honestly could easily get away with a Mac Mini M4 Pro. Even if you would do video, the Mac Mini would be more than enough. 48GB Ram is the sweet spot and then get the SSD size you need. If you want to save a bit, get a thunderbolt 4 or 5 dock and a 4TB or 8TB SSDz and stick with the base 512GB internal SSD.

The Studio is overkill even for large files photo editing.

 

[Tord S Eriksson]

What did Ed end up choosing?

 

[Ed Constable]

Ah, sorry, I was waiting for the beast to arrive. I tried out a 2025 Mac Mini with LR and PS. Batch processing and noise removal in LR was slow(ish) with Sony A1M2 ARW files, and phenomenally slow with Fuji GF100s.

I then compared M3 ultra and M4 Max Studios. There was no niticeable difference in normal LR stuff, including noise reduction. The M3 had a very slight speed advantage with batch noise processing. Subjectively, the M4 was faster than the M3 in focus stacking using zerene.

I didn't mention that I also need to run molecular modelling software on the Mac as well. So the bottom line was an M4 Max, 40 core GPU, 128 GB and then a luxury 8TB SSD on board. The latter was based on a real difference I noticed in processing time between files on the SSD and on a Thunderbolt 4 connected drive. That way I can keep archival files on an external drive but the current year on the SSD.

Thanks for all of the help and advice.

Ed

 

[Tord S Eriksson]

Ah, sorry, I was waiting for the beast to arrive. I tried out a 2025 Mac Mini with LR and PS. Batch processing and noise removal in LR was slow(ish) with Sony A1M2 ARW files, and phenomenally slow with Fuji GF100s.

I then compared M3 ultra and M4 Max Studios. There was no niticeable difference in normal LR stuff, including noise reduction. The M3 had a very slight speed advantage with batch noise processing. Subjectively, the M4 was faster than the M3 in focus stacking using zerene.

I didn't mention that I also need to run molecular modelling software on the Mac as well. So the bottom line was an M4 Max, 40 core GPU, 128 GB and then a luxury 8TB SSD on board. The latter was based on a real difference I noticed in processing time between files on the SSD and on a Thunderbolt 4 connected drive. That way I can keep archival files on an external drive but the current year on the SSD.

Thanks for all of the help and advice.

Ed

That sounds like a very capable setup, not found in everyone's home, anywhere!

 

[dspoel]

I didn't mention that I also need to run molecular modelling software on the Mac as well. So the bottom line was an M4 Max, 40 core GPU, 128 GB and then a luxury 8TB SSD on board. The latter was based on a real difference I noticed in processing time between files on the SSD and on a Thunderbolt 4 connected drive. That way I can keep archival files on an external drive but the current year on the SSD.

Thanks for all of the help and advice.

Ed

OT, but being a developer of molecular modelling software I wonder why you would do that on your home computer rather than a big cluster?

That said, I do a lot of small modelling calculations and force field development on my M3 Max laptop

 

[Ed Constable]

Thanks David

Spartan runs DFT on small-to mid-sized molecules rather well on an ARM Mac

Ed

 

[Hal Wilson]

You honestly could easily get away with a Mac Mini M4 Pro. Even if you would do video, the Mac Mini would be more than enough. 48GB Ram is the sweet spot and then get the SSD size you need. If you want to save a bit, get a thunderbolt 4 or 5 dock and a 4TB or 8TB SSDz and stick with the base 512GB internal SSD.

The Studio is overkill even for large files photo editing.

That's what I reckon too. These high end modern Macs are totally overkill for all but a tiny fraction of users. I'd save (lots) of money by just buying a higher spec MacMini or iMac, and spend the rest on camera gear. Because that will make a lot more difference for me, than computer hardware. For reference; I use a 2021 M1 iMac for all my photo stuff, so that includes 45Mp RAW files form my Z8. I've even shot some 8k RAW video footage just to see how the iMac copes with it, and it was fine in Premiere. Undoubtedly a higher spec machine would be quicker, but I can use DeNoise Ai in Lr and have multiple files denoising, and it never takes more than a few minutes. Enough time to go and make a cup of tea, look away from the screen and rest my eyes. Remember that video work is processing many, many high res RAW images per second. So way more demanding than single stills.

A lot of people are duped into believing they need MOAR POWR! all the time. This is how computer companies make money...

 

[Tord S Eriksson]

You honestly could easily get away with a Mac Mini M4 Pro. Even if you would do video, the Mac Mini would be more than enough. 48GB Ram is the sweet spot and then get the SSD size you need. If you want to save a bit, get a thunderbolt 4 or 5 dock and a 4TB or 8TB SSDz and stick with the base 512GB internal SSD.

The Studio is overkill even for large files photo editing.

That's what I reckon too. These high end modern Macs are totally overkill for all but a tiny fraction of users. I'd save (lots) of money by just buying a higher spec MacMini or iMac, and spend the rest on camera gear. Because that will make a lot more difference for me, than computer hardware. For reference; I use a 2021 M1 iMac for all my photo stuff, so that includes 45Mp RAW files form my Z8. I've even shot some 8k RAW video footage just to see how the iMac copes with it, and it was fine in Premiere. Undoubtedly a higher spec machine would be quicker, but I can use DeNoise Ai in Lr and have multiple files denoising, and it never takes more than a few minutes. Enough time to go and make a cup of tea, look away from the screen and rest my eyes. Remember that video work is processing many, many high res RAW images per second. So way more demanding than single stills.

A lot of people are duped into believing they need MOAR POWR! all the time. This is how computer companies make money...

Been around computers since my IBM mainframe days, then some RiscOS stuff, Linux, and a PC or two, for a decade or two. After all that, I changed to Macs!

I still have my old iMac (Intel) that runs like clockwork, but is a bit slow on big files, so my son will soon lend me a Mac Mini M2, and that is about ten times faster! So an M3 with lots of RAM would be amazing, not to mention an M4, or the coming M5! I have a 1 TB SSD in my old Intel iMac, which has never given me any issues, but more RAM would have helped at times!

 

[paulraphael]

One person's opinion - I'd lean towards an M4 Max coupled with 40 core GPU. That gives options for 48 or 64 GB of RAM. An M3 Ultra (96 GB RAM / 60 core GPU / 4TB) is $5000 while an M4 Max (64 GB RAM / 40 core GPU / 4 TB) is $3900. Unless you're doing extensive video work or high end stitching, I'm not sure the extra $1000 bucks for the Ultra is warranted. In fact, I'd consider limiting internal storage to 2TB and using a robust external storage arrangement. I think 64 GB RAM coupled with 40 core GPU (and whatever amount of internal storage you decide) will be more than sufficient given your stated use case.

I have an M2 Max Studio w/ 32 GB of RAM and it works fine w/ LR denoise and DxO Deep Prime noise reduction (roughly 10 seconds per image). I work with 24 MP RAW files in LR and PS. No video. Plenty of noise reduction and AI generative remove. Works fine for me.

Thom Hogan has published a nice Mac summary for photographers.

Nick

I agree with all this.

I've gotten by with much less, but a system configured the way Nick says will give great performance at a good value. To get a little more performance you'll have to spend much more.

More important than the computer itself is your monitor and color management regimen. This is assuming that you do more with your work than look at it on your own screen. I'm a firm believer in a hardware-calibratable graphic arts monitor (Eizo or older NEC Color Edge) along with a calibrated print viewing area.

The other consideration is external storage and backup. Backup is its own topic (plenty of threads about this). When it comes to bulk storage for your images, you'll want an SSD, but it doesn't have to be state-of-the-art in performance. Many tests in LightRoom and PhotoShop show that once you get up to average SSD speeds, the drive stops being the bottleneck in reading and writing operations. I'd focus on robustness: a high quality drive or drives, a high quality Thunderbolt enclosure with active cooling.