Configuring New Mac Studio for Photoshop

[steverap]

I have a 5-year-old, 27" iMac (40 GB RAM, 50% of a 2TB internal drive unused) that has become painfully slow running Photoshop: each stroke of a selection, for example, takes 3-5 seconds to take effect. I shoot with a Sony a7R V, so RAW files are large (~130 MB), and I do a great deal of editing, so my files often exceed 4 GB in size after a few editing sessions. I intend to replace my iMac with a Mac Studio, but where should I invest my money: chip (Max M2 or Ultra M2), CPU cores (12 or 24), GPU cores (38, 60, or 76), memory (64 or 96)? I will add a 2TB internal SSD drive. BTW all Photoshop performance options are set properly. I'd be grateful for advice, thanks.

 

[NicholasD]

I have a 5-year-old, 27" iMac (40 GB RAM, 50% of a 2TB internal drive unused) that has become painfully slow running Photoshop: each stroke of a selection, for example, takes 3-5 seconds to take effect. I shoot with a Sony a7R V, so RAW files are large (~130 MB), and I do a great deal of editing, so my files often exceed 4 GB in size after a few editing sessions. I intend to replace my iMac with a Mac Studio, but where should I invest my money: chip (Max M2 or Ultra M2), CPU cores (12 or 24), GPU cores (38, 60, or 76), memory (64 or 96)? I will add a 2TB internal SSD drive. BTW all Photoshop performance options are set properly. I'd be grateful for advice, thanks.

One computer - one data point.

Replaced an aging iMac last year with a M2 Mac Studio Max. It's more on the modest end of the spectrum -

32 GB memory
1 TB internal storage
12/30 CPU/GPU cores.

Photos are stored on a 2TB external SSD that is Thunderbolt compatible and connected to a back USB port (TB enabled) via an OWC TB rated cable.

My workflow is pretty typical LR Classic along with PS and DXO PhotoLab (mostly used for noise reduction). I shoot a 24MP crop sensor Nikon with RAWs at 25-30 MB. Exports out of DXO done as DNGs or TIFFs are considerably larger. Have roughly 30K images in my LR library. No HDR, stitching panos or video. This handles all my needs without breaking a sweat. LR Denoise and DXO Deep Prime takes roughly 10 seconds per image (the old iMac was 90 seconds plus per image). Have done a little bit of regenerative AI and it is roughly same speed.

Very pleased with overall performance and reliability. I know extreme users would benefit from an Ultra but I can't imagine any future workflow where I would benefit from an Ultra. If anything, I'd upsize the internal SSD to 2 TB but basic processing performance is more than enough for my needs.

Hope this helps.
Nick

 

[steverap]

Very helpful, Nick, thank you so much!

 

[alanlinde]

I replaced my 2015 iMac just over a year ago with a Studio. I (still!) use a Sony A99II (~85MB raw files). I use Affinity Photo and don't know how that compares with Photoshop in terms of computing load. But I opted to go up 1 level from the basic M2 Max (38 core gpu) and with 64 Gb mamory. I also have a larger disk, not that that is significant here. I usually open multiple raw files at once for processing with little delay for up to 5 images. I find it to be more than fast enough for the editing I do. Do the extra GPU cores make a difference? I don't know but for $200 I thought why not. Similarly for the extra memory. Hopefully those will allow many years of use without unacceptable time delays. So far so good anyway. Certainly I'm not regretting the choice not to spend the extra big bucks for the Ultra; I agree with Nick's comments on that.

i'm sure that whatever you get will make you happier than now! Good luck!

Alan

 

[Nick on the Baltic]

I bought a Mac Studio recently. After much contemplation of specs I went for an M2 Max 12 core with 2GB SSD and 64GB RAM. No regrets; couldn't be happier.

--
Nick on the Baltic

 

[graybalanced]

where should I invest my money: chip (Max M2 or Ultra M2), CPU cores (12 or 24),

The most usable fact here is that the single-core performance of all M2 versions is about the same. That means M2, M2 Pro, M2 Max, and M2 Ultra are actually all the same CPU speed...unless the application is strongly optimized to send parallel tasks to multiple cores. If it is, then now, the number of cores available can scale up the speed.

Photoshop is sort of, but not totally, able to take advantage of multiple cores. It is not always possible to do so in an app that edits a single image at a time, it is easy to run out of tasks to hand to other cores. Therefore, you might not see much difference between M2 Max and M2 Ultra in the Cpu department in Photoshop, even though the Ultra has double the CPU cores.

You will see more multi-core difference if you are batching in Lightroom or Camera Raw. Because those apps can frequently be used to edit or export many images at once. Each image's edits can be passed to a separate core. Applying the same edits to 100 images will take far less time in LR/CR than in Photoshop.

GPU cores (38, 60, or 76),

Again for Photoshop you might not see much difference between M2 Max or Ultra in the GPU department. Photoshop does use GPU acceleration, but again it doesn't have the opportunities to apply it as much as a video editor or 3D app can, those benefit very greatly from more GPU cores.

memory(64 or 96)?

Photoshop loves memory, and your files seem large enough that 64GB can be justified. Relatively few benefit from 96GB, but with your file sizes, you might make one where 96GB would actually get used, so if you can afford it, it might not be a mistake.

The ArtisRight channel on YouTube performance tests many Macs for photography. The link below does directly to a Photoshop test on the Mac Studio M2 Max vs M2 Ultra, using a known, downloadable benchmark test suite. The difference between M2 Max and M2 Ultra is not significant on the small and medium tests, with the medium test being a 15.7GB file. Only with the large test does the M2 Ultra pull ahead significantly, but that is a 56GB test file, and the M2 Ultra had 64GB while the M2 Max had 32GB, so in this case it looks like it was not the GPU or GPU but the memory that made the difference, because a 64GB Mac can handle a 56GB file much better than a 32GB Mac, with much less VM swapping.

Hopefully all of this will help you figure out what you need to do.

 

[Night Pixel]

I have a 5-year-old, 27" iMac (40 GB RAM, 50% of a 2TB internal drive unused) that has become painfully slow running Photoshop: each stroke of a selection, for example, takes 3-5 seconds to take effect. I shoot with a Sony a7R V, so RAW files are large (~130 MB), and I do a great deal of editing, so my files often exceed 4 GB in size after a few editing sessions. I intend to replace my iMac with a Mac Studio, but where should I invest my money: chip (Max M2 or Ultra M2), CPU cores (12 or 24), GPU cores (38, 60, or 76), memory (64 or 96)? I will add a 2TB internal SSD drive. BTW all Photoshop performance options are set properly. I'd be grateful for advice, thanks.

Your call. Macrumors rates this model, which I own since release date in 2023, as "updating soon." Now Marc Gurman says the M4 or whatever version will not release until mid-2025.

If you need it today then buy the M2 today. It is more than powerful enough to do the job. I would only spend money on the Ultra chip if you do lots of video editing. For photography the Max version is more than enough.


SOURCE: https://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#mac

--
"A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you the less you know." - Diane Arbus

 

[NicholasD]

I have a 5-year-old, 27" iMac (40 GB RAM, 50% of a 2TB internal drive unused) that has become painfully slow running Photoshop: each stroke of a selection, for example, takes 3-5 seconds to take effect. I shoot with a Sony a7R V, so RAW files are large (~130 MB), and I do a great deal of editing, so my files often exceed 4 GB in size after a few editing sessions. I intend to replace my iMac with a Mac Studio, but where should I invest my money: chip (Max M2 or Ultra M2), CPU cores (12 or 24), GPU cores (38, 60, or 76), memory (64 or 96)? I will add a 2TB internal SSD drive. BTW all Photoshop performance options are set properly. I'd be grateful for advice, thanks.

One computer - one data point.

Replaced an aging iMac last year with a M2 Mac Studio Max. It's more on the modest end of the spectrum -

32 GB memory
1 TB internal storage
12/30 CPU/GPU cores.

Photos are stored on a 2TB external SSD that is Thunderbolt compatible and connected to a back USB port (TB enabled) via an OWC TB rated cable.

My workflow is pretty typical LR Classic along with PS and DXO PhotoLab (mostly used for noise reduction). I shoot a 24MP crop sensor Nikon with RAWs at 25-30 MB. Exports out of DXO done as DNGs or TIFFs are considerably larger. Have roughly 30K images in my LR library. No HDR, stitching panos or video. This handles all my needs without breaking a sweat. LR Denoise and DXO Deep Prime takes roughly 10 seconds per image (the old iMac was 90 seconds plus per image). Have done a little bit of regenerative AI and it is roughly same speed.

Very pleased with overall performance and reliability. I know extreme users would benefit from an Ultra but I can't imagine any future workflow where I would benefit from an Ultra. If anything, I'd upsize the internal SSD to 2 TB but basic processing performance is more than enough for my needs.

Hope this helps.
Nick

An edit to the above after re-reading: I didn't mean to infer that I process everything through DXO as large TIFFs or DNGs. Only images with challenging noise issues (either as is or when considering final output) go through DXO Deep Prime or LR Denoise. That's probably around 10-15%. A lot of my images are action shots at base ISO and I have the luxury of not needing to deal with noise..... Also imports are typically dozens at a time rather than hundreds (standard previews). Likewise, it is rare that I export more than say 20 images at the same time. So, far from a power user.

Also, the following Mac article by Thom Hogan may be helpful.

Nick

 

[steverap]

where should I invest my money: chip (Max M2 or Ultra M2), CPU cores (12 or 24),

The most usable fact here is that the single-core performance of all M2 versions is about the same. That means M2, M2 Pro, M2 Max, and M2 Ultra are actually all the same CPU speed...unless the application is strongly optimized to send parallel tasks to multiple cores. If it is, then now, the number of cores available can scale up the speed.

Photoshop is sort of, but not totally, able to take advantage of multiple cores. It is not always possible to do so in an app that edits a single image at a time, it is easy to run out of tasks to hand to other cores. Therefore, you might not see much difference between M2 Max and M2 Ultra in the Cpu department in Photoshop, even though the Ultra has double the CPU cores.

You will see more multi-core difference if you are batching in Lightroom or Camera Raw. Because those apps can frequently be used to edit or export many images at once. Each image's edits can be passed to a separate core. Applying the same edits to 100 images will take far less time in LR/CR than in Photoshop.

GPU cores (38, 60, or 76),

Again for Photoshop you might not see much difference between M2 Max or Ultra in the GPU department. Photoshop does use GPU acceleration, but again it doesn't have the opportunities to apply it as much as a video editor or 3D app can, those benefit very greatly from more GPU cores.

memory(64 or 96)?

Photoshop loves memory, and your files seem large enough that 64GB can be justified. Relatively few benefit from 96GB, but with your file sizes, you might make one where 96GB would actually get used, so if you can afford it, it might not be a mistake.

The ArtisRight channel on YouTube performance tests many Macs for photography. The link below does directly to a Photoshop test on the Mac Studio M2 Max vs M2 Ultra, using a known, downloadable benchmark test suite. The difference between M2 Max and M2 Ultra is not significant on the small and medium tests, with the medium test being a 15.7GB file. Only with the large test does the M2 Ultra pull ahead significantly, but that is a 56GB test file, and the M2 Ultra had 64GB while the M2 Max had 32GB, so in this case it looks like it was not the GPU or GPU but the memory that made the difference, because a 64GB Mac can handle a 56GB file much better than a 32GB Mac, with much less VM swapping.

Hopefully all of this will help you figure out what you need to do.

Thank you so much for this detailed reply. Since I do no batch processing but I do work with very large files, sounds like you recommend an M2 Max with 12 core CPU, 38 core GPU, and 64GB memory, though perhaps I might upgrade to the 12 core CPU and 38 core GPU Model so that I can increase memory to 96GB. Sound right?

 

[lumigraphics]

I have a 5-year-old, 27" iMac (40 GB RAM, 50% of a 2TB internal drive unused) that has become painfully slow running Photoshop: each stroke of a selection, for example, takes 3-5 seconds to take effect. I shoot with a Sony a7R V, so RAW files are large (~130 MB), and I do a great deal of editing, so my files often exceed 4 GB in size after a few editing sessions. I intend to replace my iMac with a Mac Studio, but where should I invest my money: chip (Max M2 or Ultra M2), CPU cores (12 or 24), GPU cores (38, 60, or 76), memory (64 or 96)? I will add a 2TB internal SSD drive. BTW all Photoshop performance options are set properly. I'd be grateful for advice, thanks.

Memory and internal storage, in that order. Processor will make a difference but is much less important. Look at Apple's refurb page to see if something there will save you money.

 

[Thom Hogan]

where should I invest my money: chip (Max M2 or Ultra M2), CPU cores (12 or 24),

The most usable fact here is that the single-core performance of all M2 versions is about the same. That means M2, M2 Pro, M2 Max, and M2 Ultra are actually all the same CPU speed...unless the application is strongly optimized to send parallel tasks to multiple cores. If it is, then now, the number of cores available can scale up the speed.

Photoshop is sort of, but not totally, able to take advantage of multiple cores. It is not always possible to do so in an app that edits a single image at a time, it is easy to run out of tasks to hand to other cores. Therefore, you might not see much difference between M2 Max and M2 Ultra in the Cpu department in Photoshop, even though the Ultra has double the CPU cores.

You will see more multi-core difference if you are batching in Lightroom or Camera Raw. Because those apps can frequently be used to edit or export many images at once. Each image's edits can be passed to a separate core. Applying the same edits to 100 images will take far less time in LR/CR than in Photoshop.

GPU cores (38, 60, or 76),

Again for Photoshop you might not see much difference between M2 Max or Ultra in the GPU department. Photoshop does use GPU acceleration, but again it doesn't have the opportunities to apply it as much as a video editor or 3D app can, those benefit very greatly from more GPU cores.

memory(64 or 96)?

Photoshop loves memory, and your files seem large enough that 64GB can be justified. Relatively few benefit from 96GB, but with your file sizes, you might make one where 96GB would actually get used, so if you can afford it, it might not be a mistake.

The ArtisRight channel on YouTube performance tests many Macs for photography. The link below does directly to a Photoshop test on the Mac Studio M2 Max vs M2 Ultra, using a known, downloadable benchmark test suite. The difference between M2 Max and M2 Ultra is not significant on the small and medium tests, with the medium test being a 15.7GB file. Only with the large test does the M2 Ultra pull ahead significantly, but that is a 56GB test file, and the M2 Ultra had 64GB while the M2 Max had 32GB, so in this case it looks like it was not the GPU or GPU but the memory that made the difference, because a 64GB Mac can handle a 56GB file much better than a 32GB Mac, with much less VM swapping.

Hopefully all of this will help you figure out what you need to do.

Thank you so much for this detailed reply. Since I do no batch processing but I do work with very large files, sounds like you recommend an M2 Max with 12 core CPU, 38 core GPU, and 64GB memory, though perhaps I might upgrade to the 12 core CPU and 38 core GPU Model so that I can increase memory to 96GB. Sound right?

Graybalanced has it correct. From a performance standpoint on the software you're using, the order of importance is:

1. Memory 'til maxed out
2. GPU cores
3. Everything else

The one additional thing I'd point out is that because of the way macOS now works (think RAM Doubler, a product my company launched in the 1990's, which Apple has now effectively copied), the storage can become a bottleneck in some situations. You need plenty of free internal SSD space to combat that, because you need fast virtual memory when you trigger the spillover.

 

[steverap]

where should I invest my money: chip (Max M2 or Ultra M2), CPU cores (12 or 24),

The most usable fact here is that the single-core performance of all M2 versions is about the same. That means M2, M2 Pro, M2 Max, and M2 Ultra are actually all the same CPU speed...unless the application is strongly optimized to send parallel tasks to multiple cores. If it is, then now, the number of cores available can scale up the speed.

Photoshop is sort of, but not totally, able to take advantage of multiple cores. It is not always possible to do so in an app that edits a single image at a time, it is easy to run out of tasks to hand to other cores. Therefore, you might not see much difference between M2 Max and M2 Ultra in the Cpu department in Photoshop, even though the Ultra has double the CPU cores.

You will see more multi-core difference if you are batching in Lightroom or Camera Raw. Because those apps can frequently be used to edit or export many images at once. Each image's edits can be passed to a separate core. Applying the same edits to 100 images will take far less time in LR/CR than in Photoshop.

GPU cores (38, 60, or 76),

Again for Photoshop you might not see much difference between M2 Max or Ultra in the GPU department. Photoshop does use GPU acceleration, but again it doesn't have the opportunities to apply it as much as a video editor or 3D app can, those benefit very greatly from more GPU cores.

memory(64 or 96)?

Photoshop loves memory, and your files seem large enough that 64GB can be justified. Relatively few benefit from 96GB, but with your file sizes, you might make one where 96GB would actually get used, so if you can afford it, it might not be a mistake.

The ArtisRight channel on YouTube performance tests many Macs for photography. The link below does directly to a Photoshop test on the Mac Studio M2 Max vs M2 Ultra, using a known, downloadable benchmark test suite. The difference between M2 Max and M2 Ultra is not significant on the small and medium tests, with the medium test being a 15.7GB file. Only with the large test does the M2 Ultra pull ahead significantly, but that is a 56GB test file, and the M2 Ultra had 64GB while the M2 Max had 32GB, so in this case it looks like it was not the GPU or GPU but the memory that made the difference, because a 64GB Mac can handle a 56GB file much better than a 32GB Mac, with much less VM swapping.

Hopefully all of this will help you figure out what you need to do.

Thank you so much for this detailed reply. Since I do no batch processing but I do work with very large files, sounds like you recommend an M2 Max with 12 core CPU, 38 core GPU, and 64GB memory, though perhaps I might upgrade to the 12 core CPU and 38 core GPU Model so that I can increase memory to 96GB. Sound right?

Graybalanced has it correct. From a performance standpoint on the software you're using, the order of importance is:

1. Memory 'til maxed out
2. GPU cores
3. Everything else

The one additional thing I'd point out is that because of the way macOS now works (think RAM Doubler, a product my company launched in the 1990's, which Apple has now effectively copied), the storage can become a bottleneck in some situations. You need plenty of free internal SSD space to combat that, because you need fast virtual memory when you trigger the spillover.

Thanks, Thom. Graybalanced suggested that cores improve Photoshop performance chiefly when batch processing, and since I never batch process files, it seems to me that adding cores would have little impact on my workflow. Do you agree?

 

[Thom Hogan]

where should I invest my money: chip (Max M2 or Ultra M2), CPU cores (12 or 24),

The most usable fact here is that the single-core performance of all M2 versions is about the same. That means M2, M2 Pro, M2 Max, and M2 Ultra are actually all the same CPU speed...unless the application is strongly optimized to send parallel tasks to multiple cores. If it is, then now, the number of cores available can scale up the speed.

Photoshop is sort of, but not totally, able to take advantage of multiple cores. It is not always possible to do so in an app that edits a single image at a time, it is easy to run out of tasks to hand to other cores. Therefore, you might not see much difference between M2 Max and M2 Ultra in the Cpu department in Photoshop, even though the Ultra has double the CPU cores.

You will see more multi-core difference if you are batching in Lightroom or Camera Raw. Because those apps can frequently be used to edit or export many images at once. Each image's edits can be passed to a separate core. Applying the same edits to 100 images will take far less time in LR/CR than in Photoshop.

GPU cores (38, 60, or 76),

Again for Photoshop you might not see much difference between M2 Max or Ultra in the GPU department. Photoshop does use GPU acceleration, but again it doesn't have the opportunities to apply it as much as a video editor or 3D app can, those benefit very greatly from more GPU cores.

memory(64 or 96)?

Photoshop loves memory, and your files seem large enough that 64GB can be justified. Relatively few benefit from 96GB, but with your file sizes, you might make one where 96GB would actually get used, so if you can afford it, it might not be a mistake.

The ArtisRight channel on YouTube performance tests many Macs for photography. The link below does directly to a Photoshop test on the Mac Studio M2 Max vs M2 Ultra, using a known, downloadable benchmark test suite. The difference between M2 Max and M2 Ultra is not significant on the small and medium tests, with the medium test being a 15.7GB file. Only with the large test does the M2 Ultra pull ahead significantly, but that is a 56GB test file, and the M2 Ultra had 64GB while the M2 Max had 32GB, so in this case it looks like it was not the GPU or GPU but the memory that made the difference, because a 64GB Mac can handle a 56GB file much better than a 32GB Mac, with much less VM swapping.

Hopefully all of this will help you figure out what you need to do.

Thank you so much for this detailed reply. Since I do no batch processing but I do work with very large files, sounds like you recommend an M2 Max with 12 core CPU, 38 core GPU, and 64GB memory, though perhaps I might upgrade to the 12 core CPU and 38 core GPU Model so that I can increase memory to 96GB. Sound right?

Graybalanced has it correct. From a performance standpoint on the software you're using, the order of importance is:

1. Memory 'til maxed out
2. GPU cores
3. Everything else

The one additional thing I'd point out is that because of the way macOS now works (think RAM Doubler, a product my company launched in the 1990's, which Apple has now effectively copied), the storage can become a bottleneck in some situations. You need plenty of free internal SSD space to combat that, because you need fast virtual memory when you trigger the spillover.

Thanks, Thom. Graybalanced suggested that cores improve Photoshop performance chiefly when batch processing, and since I never batch process files, it seems to me that adding cores would have little impact on my workflow. Do you agree?

Not exactly. Yes, more GPUs help with batch processing, but they now are also increasingly being used in the AI functions of Photoshop (the generative fill, for example). Some plug-ins also use more GPU than before. I don't think you have to go out of your way to maximize GPUs in a Mac decision, but it's not something you should completely ignore.

Fortunately, GPU increase tends to come with memory increase in Apple's current line, so you don't have to think about that much ;~).

 

[steverap]

where should I invest my money: chip (Max M2 or Ultra M2), CPU cores (12 or 24),

The most usable fact here is that the single-core performance of all M2 versions is about the same. That means M2, M2 Pro, M2 Max, and M2 Ultra are actually all the same CPU speed...unless the application is strongly optimized to send parallel tasks to multiple cores. If it is, then now, the number of cores available can scale up the speed.

Photoshop is sort of, but not totally, able to take advantage of multiple cores. It is not always possible to do so in an app that edits a single image at a time, it is easy to run out of tasks to hand to other cores. Therefore, you might not see much difference between M2 Max and M2 Ultra in the Cpu department in Photoshop, even though the Ultra has double the CPU cores.

You will see more multi-core difference if you are batching in Lightroom or Camera Raw. Because those apps can frequently be used to edit or export many images at once. Each image's edits can be passed to a separate core. Applying the same edits to 100 images will take far less time in LR/CR than in Photoshop.

GPU cores (38, 60, or 76),

Again for Photoshop you might not see much difference between M2 Max or Ultra in the GPU department. Photoshop does use GPU acceleration, but again it doesn't have the opportunities to apply it as much as a video editor or 3D app can, those benefit very greatly from more GPU cores.

memory(64 or 96)?

Photoshop loves memory, and your files seem large enough that 64GB can be justified. Relatively few benefit from 96GB, but with your file sizes, you might make one where 96GB would actually get used, so if you can afford it, it might not be a mistake.

The ArtisRight channel on YouTube performance tests many Macs for photography. The link below does directly to a Photoshop test on the Mac Studio M2 Max vs M2 Ultra, using a known, downloadable benchmark test suite. The difference between M2 Max and M2 Ultra is not significant on the small and medium tests, with the medium test being a 15.7GB file. Only with the large test does the M2 Ultra pull ahead significantly, but that is a 56GB test file, and the M2 Ultra had 64GB while the M2 Max had 32GB, so in this case it looks like it was not the GPU or GPU but the memory that made the difference, because a 64GB Mac can handle a 56GB file much better than a 32GB Mac, with much less VM swapping.

Hopefully all of this will help you figure out what you need to do.

Thank you so much for this detailed reply. Since I do no batch processing but I do work with very large files, sounds like you recommend an M2 Max with 12 core CPU, 38 core GPU, and 64GB memory, though perhaps I might upgrade to the 12 core CPU and 38 core GPU Model so that I can increase memory to 96GB. Sound right?

Graybalanced has it correct. From a performance standpoint on the software you're using, the order of importance is:

1. Memory 'til maxed out
2. GPU cores
3. Everything else

The one additional thing I'd point out is that because of the way macOS now works (think RAM Doubler, a product my company launched in the 1990's, which Apple has now effectively copied), the storage can become a bottleneck in some situations. You need plenty of free internal SSD space to combat that, because you need fast virtual memory when you trigger the spillover.

Thanks, Thom. Graybalanced suggested that cores improve Photoshop performance chiefly when batch processing, and since I never batch process files, it seems to me that adding cores would have little impact on my workflow. Do you agree?

Not exactly. Yes, more GPUs help with batch processing, but they now are also increasingly being used in the AI functions of Photoshop (the generative fill, for example). Some plug-ins also use more GPU than before. I don't think you have to go out of your way to maximize GPUs in a Mac decision, but it's not something you should completely ignore.

Fortunately, GPU increase tends to come with memory increase in Apple's current line, so you don't have to think about that much ;~).

Okay, thanks, I was considering the following Mac Studio configuration: M2 Max, 12-core CPU, 38-core GPU, 96GB memory, 2TB internal drive.

I do not do any batch processing but I do work with very large, heavily edited files - often exceeding 4GB - in Photoshop (though I also use Lightroom and Camera Raw in my workflow, and ON1 occasionally). Would I benefit from 96GB (instead of 64GB) of memory; do I need more CPU or GPIU cores? Thanks, Thom, I appreciate the advice.

 

[Thom Hogan]

where should I invest my money: chip (Max M2 or Ultra M2), CPU cores (12 or 24),

The most usable fact here is that the single-core performance of all M2 versions is about the same. That means M2, M2 Pro, M2 Max, and M2 Ultra are actually all the same CPU speed...unless the application is strongly optimized to send parallel tasks to multiple cores. If it is, then now, the number of cores available can scale up the speed.

Photoshop is sort of, but not totally, able to take advantage of multiple cores. It is not always possible to do so in an app that edits a single image at a time, it is easy to run out of tasks to hand to other cores. Therefore, you might not see much difference between M2 Max and M2 Ultra in the Cpu department in Photoshop, even though the Ultra has double the CPU cores.

You will see more multi-core difference if you are batching in Lightroom or Camera Raw. Because those apps can frequently be used to edit or export many images at once. Each image's edits can be passed to a separate core. Applying the same edits to 100 images will take far less time in LR/CR than in Photoshop.

GPU cores (38, 60, or 76),

Again for Photoshop you might not see much difference between M2 Max or Ultra in the GPU department. Photoshop does use GPU acceleration, but again it doesn't have the opportunities to apply it as much as a video editor or 3D app can, those benefit very greatly from more GPU cores.

memory(64 or 96)?

Photoshop loves memory, and your files seem large enough that 64GB can be justified. Relatively few benefit from 96GB, but with your file sizes, you might make one where 96GB would actually get used, so if you can afford it, it might not be a mistake.

The ArtisRight channel on YouTube performance tests many Macs for photography. The link below does directly to a Photoshop test on the Mac Studio M2 Max vs M2 Ultra, using a known, downloadable benchmark test suite. The difference between M2 Max and M2 Ultra is not significant on the small and medium tests, with the medium test being a 15.7GB file. Only with the large test does the M2 Ultra pull ahead significantly, but that is a 56GB test file, and the M2 Ultra had 64GB while the M2 Max had 32GB, so in this case it looks like it was not the GPU or GPU but the memory that made the difference, because a 64GB Mac can handle a 56GB file much better than a 32GB Mac, with much less VM swapping.

Hopefully all of this will help you figure out what you need to do.

Thank you so much for this detailed reply. Since I do no batch processing but I do work with very large files, sounds like you recommend an M2 Max with 12 core CPU, 38 core GPU, and 64GB memory, though perhaps I might upgrade to the 12 core CPU and 38 core GPU Model so that I can increase memory to 96GB. Sound right?

Graybalanced has it correct. From a performance standpoint on the software you're using, the order of importance is:

1. Memory 'til maxed out
2. GPU cores
3. Everything else

The one additional thing I'd point out is that because of the way macOS now works (think RAM Doubler, a product my company launched in the 1990's, which Apple has now effectively copied), the storage can become a bottleneck in some situations. You need plenty of free internal SSD space to combat that, because you need fast virtual memory when you trigger the spillover.

Thanks, Thom. Graybalanced suggested that cores improve Photoshop performance chiefly when batch processing, and since I never batch process files, it seems to me that adding cores would have little impact on my workflow. Do you agree?

Not exactly. Yes, more GPUs help with batch processing, but they now are also increasingly being used in the AI functions of Photoshop (the generative fill, for example). Some plug-ins also use more GPU than before. I don't think you have to go out of your way to maximize GPUs in a Mac decision, but it's not something you should completely ignore.

Fortunately, GPU increase tends to come with memory increase in Apple's current line, so you don't have to think about that much ;~).

Okay, thanks, I was considering the following Mac Studio configuration: M2 Max, 12-core CPU, 38-core GPU, 96GB memory, 2TB internal drive.

I do not do any batch processing but I do work with very large, heavily edited files - often exceeding 4GB - in Photoshop (though I also use Lightroom and Camera Raw in my workflow, and ON1 occasionally). Would I benefit from 96GB (instead of 64GB) of memory; do I need more CPU or GPIU cores? Thanks, Thom, I appreciate the advice.

You don't need more cores. You might benefit from more memory. I'm mostly running 64GB M1's at the moment (I have a newer machine I use for testing new stuff). That's a lot of horsepower that's difficult to make sluggish (but it can be done; like when I threw a 128 image pano at it ;~).

 

[lumigraphics]

where should I invest my money: chip (Max M2 or Ultra M2), CPU cores (12 or 24),

The most usable fact here is that the single-core performance of all M2 versions is about the same. That means M2, M2 Pro, M2 Max, and M2 Ultra are actually all the same CPU speed...unless the application is strongly optimized to send parallel tasks to multiple cores. If it is, then now, the number of cores available can scale up the speed.

Photoshop is sort of, but not totally, able to take advantage of multiple cores. It is not always possible to do so in an app that edits a single image at a time, it is easy to run out of tasks to hand to other cores. Therefore, you might not see much difference between M2 Max and M2 Ultra in the Cpu department in Photoshop, even though the Ultra has double the CPU cores.

You will see more multi-core difference if you are batching in Lightroom or Camera Raw. Because those apps can frequently be used to edit or export many images at once. Each image's edits can be passed to a separate core. Applying the same edits to 100 images will take far less time in LR/CR than in Photoshop.

GPU cores (38, 60, or 76),

Again for Photoshop you might not see much difference between M2 Max or Ultra in the GPU department. Photoshop does use GPU acceleration, but again it doesn't have the opportunities to apply it as much as a video editor or 3D app can, those benefit very greatly from more GPU cores.

memory(64 or 96)?

Photoshop loves memory, and your files seem large enough that 64GB can be justified. Relatively few benefit from 96GB, but with your file sizes, you might make one where 96GB would actually get used, so if you can afford it, it might not be a mistake.

The ArtisRight channel on YouTube performance tests many Macs for photography. The link below does directly to a Photoshop test on the Mac Studio M2 Max vs M2 Ultra, using a known, downloadable benchmark test suite. The difference between M2 Max and M2 Ultra is not significant on the small and medium tests, with the medium test being a 15.7GB file. Only with the large test does the M2 Ultra pull ahead significantly, but that is a 56GB test file, and the M2 Ultra had 64GB while the M2 Max had 32GB, so in this case it looks like it was not the GPU or GPU but the memory that made the difference, because a 64GB Mac can handle a 56GB file much better than a 32GB Mac, with much less VM swapping.

Hopefully all of this will help you figure out what you need to do.

Thank you so much for this detailed reply. Since I do no batch processing but I do work with very large files, sounds like you recommend an M2 Max with 12 core CPU, 38 core GPU, and 64GB memory, though perhaps I might upgrade to the 12 core CPU and 38 core GPU Model so that I can increase memory to 96GB. Sound right?

Graybalanced has it correct. From a performance standpoint on the software you're using, the order of importance is:

1. Memory 'til maxed out
2. GPU cores
3. Everything else

The one additional thing I'd point out is that because of the way macOS now works (think RAM Doubler, a product my company launched in the 1990's, which Apple has now effectively copied), the storage can become a bottleneck in some situations. You need plenty of free internal SSD space to combat that, because you need fast virtual memory when you trigger the spillover.

Thanks, Thom. Graybalanced suggested that cores improve Photoshop performance chiefly when batch processing, and since I never batch process files, it seems to me that adding cores would have little impact on my workflow. Do you agree?

Not exactly. Yes, more GPUs help with batch processing, but they now are also increasingly being used in the AI functions of Photoshop (the generative fill, for example). Some plug-ins also use more GPU than before. I don't think you have to go out of your way to maximize GPUs in a Mac decision, but it's not something you should completely ignore.

Fortunately, GPU increase tends to come with memory increase in Apple's current line, so you don't have to think about that much ;~).

Okay, thanks, I was considering the following Mac Studio configuration: M2 Max, 12-core CPU, 38-core GPU, 96GB memory, 2TB internal drive.

I do not do any batch processing but I do work with very large, heavily edited files - often exceeding 4GB - in Photoshop (though I also use Lightroom and Camera Raw in my workflow, and ON1 occasionally). Would I benefit from 96GB (instead of 64GB) of memory; do I need more CPU or GPIU cores? Thanks, Thom, I appreciate the advice.

If you can afforď it, then max it out. This will not only help with current use but also longevity and reslale value.

Just be sure to budget for good displays. A 4k Eizo or similar wide-gamut monitor can run around a thousand dollars. I have two LG 24" 4k displays that I am happy with but they are discontinued.

 

[graybalanced]

The one additional thing I'd point out is that because of the way macOS now works (think RAM Doubler, a product my company launched in the 1990's, which Apple has now effectively copied)

Wow, you were involved in RAM Doubler? I used that to take my PowerBook 160 to 14MB RAM! I was amazed...fourteen megabytes*!! I might still have the disk and package somewhere...

*Of course, the slow hard drives at the time didn't exactly let it do that quickly, as I remember...

 

[Thom Hogan]

The one additional thing I'd point out is that because of the way macOS now works (think RAM Doubler, a product my company launched in the 1990's, which Apple has now effectively copied)

Wow, you were involved in RAM Doubler?

Yes. I was in charge of that product when it was launched. And Speed Doubler. And Virtual PC. And QuickCam. And...

I used that to take my PowerBook 160 to 14MB RAM! I was amazed...fourteen megabytes*!! I might still have the disk and package somewhere...

*Of course, the slow hard drives at the time didn't exactly let it do that quickly, as I remember...

Yep. RAM Doubler was a genius idea (not my idea, though some of the later products using similar key ingredients had my ideas in them). Basically it first managed blocks of memory better than Apple did, then it compressed memory that wasn't being used at the moment (and would uncompress it when needed again), and if that didn't get you enough memory, it would then use Virtual memory to give you near infinite memory (Connectix had the patent for desktop computers for virtual memory, much to Apple's chagrin). This is almost point for point what Apple is doing in macOS now. It's why I tell people not to skimp on RAM or SSD space when they buy Apple Silicon Macs. It's rare, but I can push my 64GB MacBook Pro into spooling to SSD. If I don't have a lot of space on the SSD, this can put the computer into an agonizing sequence, as macOS slows down when there's something less than 10% of the main drive space available.

 

[lumigraphics]

The one additional thing I'd point out is that because of the way macOS now works (think RAM Doubler, a product my company launched in the 1990's, which Apple has now effectively copied)

Wow, you were involved in RAM Doubler? I used that to take my PowerBook 160 to 14MB RAM! I was amazed...fourteen megabytes*!! I might still have the disk and package somewhere...

*Of course, the slow hard drives at the time didn't exactly let it do that quickly, as I remember...

I remember visiting Apple in what, 1999 maybe, for MacWorld, we visited Infinite Loop and talked to the Apple engineer working on VM code (can't recall his name for the life of me.) He said Apple was doing mostly the same thing but a lot more safely than Connectix. Ah, good times.

 

[Thom Hogan]

The one additional thing I'd point out is that because of the way macOS now works (think RAM Doubler, a product my company launched in the 1990's, which Apple has now effectively copied)

Wow, you were involved in RAM Doubler? I used that to take my PowerBook 160 to 14MB RAM! I was amazed...fourteen megabytes*!! I might still have the disk and package somewhere...

*Of course, the slow hard drives at the time didn't exactly let it do that quickly, as I remember...

I remember visiting Apple in what, 1999 maybe, for MacWorld, we visited Infinite Loop and talked to the Apple engineer working on VM code (can't recall his name for the life of me.) He said Apple was doing mostly the same thing but a lot more safely than Connectix. Ah, good times.

Apple hated us. We kept exploiting issues in the Mac OS and essentially proving that Apple wasn't managing memory very effectively. That same engineer would have a hard time explaining why OS X a couple of years later managed memory differently ;~).

As for "safely." I'd love to hear even one example of RAM Doubler doing something that corrupted memory. I'm not aware of any. It was not a customer support issue, for sure.