Re: New Apple Studio Machines-Which one for LR/Photoshop with Sony A7RV?
Which “above?” My post or something else?
One important thing that many don’t consider is the fact that “better” isn’t always “better” in a meaningful or cost effective way.
While you don’t want to under-spec a system you also want to be careful to avoid paying a ton of money for specifications that won’t actually make a real world difference. (Ideally, the target is to go for specs that are just a little better than what you logically need — if you are going to err, better to do it a bit in that direction.)
Some end up chasing The Very Best Specs, often from concern that they will end up with an underperforming machine, when the reality is that they end up paying for specifications that make no meaningful difference in actual performance.
After using these sorts machines for photography and other media-related purposes for a LONG time (and for many years as part of a team developing tech specifications for a large institution) I learned that it makes a lot of sense to match intended use to real world benefits instead of throwing money at the highest spec’ed system.
There are situations in which paying more makes sense — as I mentioned — but it also makes a ton of sense to ask whether, say, LR users will see a $200 difference in performance from the 14-core M4 Pro versus the 12-core version. (I’m using that shorthand to refer to the upgrade option, though there’s more to it than that.) Similarly, in the case of the mini Pro, most photography users will notice literally no difference in performance from paying an extra $200 for 64GB instead of 48GB. (Given the lifespan of these things, I think the $400 for 48GB over the 24BG mini Pro base configuration is probably good insurance, at least if you plan to hold onto the machine for 5 years or so.) Likewise, the high premiums for super-large-capacity internal SSDs won’t make much sense for many users — it is more effective to stick to 1TB or 2TB and invest in good external storage.
I don’t think it is the case with our OP, but quite a few folks who are doing relatively basic LR work (which is probably most photographic users these days) would actually be very happy with a less expensive mini that doesn’t use the M4 Pro. Spend the savings on an extra monitor or two… ;-)
Bottom line: Be thoughtful about succumbing to the urge to always by the highest specification thing. Instead look at tests, consider your own experience, and target the sweet spot where you get excellent performance and avoid paying for differences that don’t make a difference.
rob_ww wrote:
When the tests are in, it will be interesting to see what the performance margin is over the M4 Mac Mini various configurations. One obvious advantage is more ports.
You do get more ports on the Studio. The mini has 5 USB-C ports, three of which ate Thunderbolt, IIRC. I had some concerns about this until I started adding things up and I realized that with the extra ports on my monitors and external enclosures I had more than I would actually use.
If you need the added capabilities of the Studio (which is a very nice system) the extra ports are a bonus. Or you could add a hub…
Mar 06, 2025 at 10:49 AM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #16767132 « New Apple Studio Machines-Which one for LR/Photoshop with Sony A7RV? »
