Processing 4k video at 60 fps kills my computers...

Joined
Jun 22, 2022
Messages
2,041
This past weekend I discovered that I am hopelessly behind the times. The wife has an Apple Macbook Air with an i7 processor and I have a Surface with an i5 processor. Both our RAM-s are 8GB and solid state HD.

I have been able to process 1080p video at 60 fps with no issues on both but I tried to do process 4k 60fps videos and neither do a good job. The wife insists we get a new laptop - I want a Macbook Pro with an M5 processor but the RAM kills you. It's integrated and you can't upgrade yourself so Apple charges an arm and a leg for anything beyond 16GB.

The other choice is to get a Windows machine. The thing is, I have found this type of laptops to not be very long lived.
 
Last edited:
I have had Windows laptops that lasted 10 years. Dells and Lenovo have probably been the best. I haven't had good luck with HP.

What do you mean by "processing"? Are you talking about watching 4k content or do you mean video editing and rendering?
 
Any Mac with Intel is very old now. Surface with i5 doesn’t say much. But they usually use low power chips and at least 4 years old?

What exactly are you trying to do? I hate Apple but my primary laptop is an M4 MacBook Air and it’s incredible what it can do while giving all day battery life.

Apple does screw you on upgrade pricing, but the base models are fairly priced IMO. Depending on what you’re doing 16GB RAM might be enough.

Try a Mac Mini for $479 on sale for Black Friday. You may want an external USB-C solid state drive for more storage. Plenty of options on sale too.
 
Whatever the wife wants, if you want a peaceful life :p

If you decide to go Windows laptop, make sure it's a business-line model from Dell, HP, or Lenovo. Regular consumer models suck from all manufactures but the big 3's business laptops are great. Dell latitudes are now called Pros. HP has their ProBook, Elitebook, and Zbooks, and Lenovos still have their thinkpads.
 
I have a Mac mini M2 Pro 16GB 1TB SSD. Keep one thing in mind, Apple products with M CPU's aren't sucky loud when being pushed unlike most Windows based laptops and desktops.
 
I want a Macbook Pro with an M5 processor but the RAM kills you. It's integrated and you can't upgrade yourself so Apple charges an arm and a leg for anything beyond 16GB

There’s a couple things to understand about modern Mac’s - that is any Mac starting with the M1 in 2020.

Apple’s chips differ from X86 in a few notable ways. RAM aka Memory is one of the most important. Historically one of the most immediate bottlenecks that you will notice or “feel” when using a computer is if it begins to run low on memory.

The OS must begin to use tricks like paging out some of the in-memory data to your disk. In the days before SSD when this meant spinning platters of your hard drive, this performance hit was enormous. It could slow to a crawl and literally “freeze up” until it was able to complete the operation.

SSD’s have closed the gap an incredible amount due to their massive jumps in both latency and overall throughput. Paging out to SSD is much “smoother” overall, but can still cause hiccups, hangs, delays etc.

As fast as SSD are, you still want to avoid running out of working memory. In fact all modern OS’s are fairly aggressive with pre-caching data INTO memory. It tries to figure out what data might be needed in the near term and, assuming there is free memory available, will load that data into memory before the CPU or GPU calls for it.

Which brings up the next important factor here, which is the GPU. For a very long time now, Graphics Processing Units have been their own dedicated stand-alone processor, connected over a data bus that talks to the CPU.

Yes, there have been “integrated graphics” from both Intel and AMD that are part of the CPU but these (in general) have been much slower than having a stand alone graphics card, for a number of reasons which we won’t really get too much into here for the sake of brevity (oops too late).

In any case the take away here is that dedicated GPU cards are very (VERY) fast on their own. Once you feed the data to them, they can process it extremely quickly. BUT they are sort of an island, in that they must then turn around and send that data back to the CPU. That data bus (PCI-E) is thoroughly trounced in speed compared to how fast the card can compute.

Oh ho ho you might say, but I can play my favorite game at 100+ fps at 4K! How slow can it be! Well if games are your only concern, then It doesn’t really matter as game developers have come up with all sorts of tricks to make the best out of this less-than-ideal scenario of having very fast graphics processing capabilities saddled to a pitifully slow bus.

Numbers time just to help put this in some sort of context. modern GPU’s have internal bandwidth of hundreds of gigs/sec. The top end workstation cards are approaching or even over 1000 GB/sec

Meanwhile as soon as you process the data and need to send it back over the PCI-E 4.0 bus you are talking about a 32 GB/sec link. oof.

PCI-E 5.0 doubles that to 64 GB/sec but still a far cry from even the 300-500 GB/sec that a mid range GPU is operating at, nevermind if you have a high-end card.

From the pcie link it gets routed to the memory controllers which then sends the data to the socketed DDR5 dimms. Without delving too much into technical details here, a typical dual-channel setup will yield around 80-90 GB/sec of main system memory bandwidth.

Faster than the PCI-E link, but still a bottleneck of its own. So if you have a workflow that involves heavy graphics compute (video processing for example) then you are in a situation where you are constantly shuttling data back and forth over these two slow links (double whammy!)

Coming around to the point now I promise. So, Apple’s approach is to say you know what, we are going to build the GPU cores directly into the CPU, and then place the memory chips on that same package.

There is no separate pool of video memory plus the system memory that traditionally would have to spend all its time transferring data from one to the other. There is only 1 single pool of unified memory that the CPU+GPU can both access directly,

Beyond this change in underlying architecture is the memory bandwidth, which starts at 120GB/sec for the base M4 and roughly doubles (actually better than double) with each tier of chip (Pro, Max) topping out at 546 GB/sec.

So the end result is a very fast, responsive system because it’s processing everything in a much more efficient manner without needless copying everything over slow bus links.

As has been true since the dawn of computing, more RAM is often the single best upgrade you can make. Yes Apple charges what they charge to upgrade the memory, but given the typical lifespan of the machines it is not outrageous as it may seem on its face. and you might just be surprised how smooth “only” 16GB can be.
 
What do you mean "process", rendering non-linear editing or displaying streaming content?

A windows (or linux) desktop will give you more bang for your buck.
I mean "edit" - process raw footage into a video to be uploaded to Youtube.
 
There’s a couple things to understand about modern Mac’s - that is any Mac starting with the M1 in 2020.

Apple’s chips differ from X86 in a few notable ways. RAM aka Memory is one of the most important. Historically one of the most immediate bottlenecks that you will notice or “feel” when using a computer is if it begins to run low on memory.

The OS must begin to use tricks like paging out some of the in-memory data to your disk. In the days before SSD when this meant spinning platters of your hard drive, this performance hit was enormous. It could slow to a crawl and literally “freeze up” until it was able to complete the operation.

SSD’s have closed the gap an incredible amount due to their massive jumps in both latency and overall throughput. Paging out to SSD is much “smoother” overall, but can still cause hiccups, hangs, delays etc.

As fast as SSD are, you still want to avoid running out of working memory. In fact all modern OS’s are fairly aggressive with pre-caching data INTO memory. It tries to figure out what data might be needed in the near term and, assuming there is free memory available, will load that data into memory before the CPU or GPU calls for it.

Which brings up the next important factor here, which is the GPU. For a very long time now, Graphics Processing Units have been their own dedicated stand-alone processor, connected over a data bus that talks to the CPU.

Yes, there have been “integrated graphics” from both Intel and AMD that are part of the CPU but these (in general) have been much slower than having a stand alone graphics card, for a number of reasons which we won’t really get too much into here for the sake of brevity (oops too late).

In any case the take away here is that dedicated GPU cards are very (VERY) fast on their own. Once you feed the data to them, they can process it extremely quickly. BUT they are sort of an island, in that they must then turn around and send that data back to the CPU. That data bus (PCI-E) is thoroughly trounced in speed compared to how fast the card can compute.

Oh ho ho you might say, but I can play my favorite game at 100+ fps at 4K! How slow can it be! Well if games are your only concern, then It doesn’t really matter as game developers have come up with all sorts of tricks to make the best out of this less-than-ideal scenario of having very fast graphics processing capabilities saddled to a pitifully slow bus.

Numbers time just to help put this in some sort of context. modern GPU’s have internal bandwidth of hundreds of gigs/sec. The top end workstation cards are approaching or even over 1000 GB/sec

Meanwhile as soon as you process the data and need to send it back over the PCI-E 4.0 bus you are talking about a 32 GB/sec link. oof.

PCI-E 5.0 doubles that to 64 GB/sec but still a far cry from even the 300-500 GB/sec that a mid range GPU is operating at, nevermind if you have a high-end card.

From the pcie link it gets routed to the memory controllers which then sends the data to the socketed DDR5 dimms. Without delving too much into technical details here, a typical dual-channel setup will yield around 80-90 GB/sec of main system memory bandwidth.

Faster than the PCI-E link, but still a bottleneck of its own. So if you have a workflow that involves heavy graphics compute (video processing for example) then you are in a situation where you are constantly shuttling data back and forth over these two slow links (double whammy!)

Coming around to the point now I promise. So, Apple’s approach is to say you know what, we are going to build the GPU cores directly into the CPU, and then place the memory chips on that same package.

There is no separate pool of video memory plus the system memory that traditionally would have to spend all its time transferring data from one to the other. There is only 1 single pool of unified memory that the CPU+GPU can both access directly,

Beyond this change in underlying architecture is the memory bandwidth, which starts at 120GB/sec for the base M4 and roughly doubles (actually better than double) with each tier of chip (Pro, Max) topping out at 546 GB/sec.

So the end result is a very fast, responsive system because it’s processing everything in a much more efficient manner without needless copying everything over slow bus links.

As has been true since the dawn of computing, more RAM is often the single best upgrade you can make. Yes Apple charges what they charge to upgrade the memory, but given the typical lifespan of the machines it is not outrageous as it may seem on its face. and you might just be surprised how smooth “only” 16GB can be.
Thanks. It seems that I have been sleeping at the wheel for the last few years as far as the GPU-s go.

I better start saving big $$$$ for an M5 MacBook Pro.
 
There’s a couple things to understand about modern Mac’s - that is any Mac starting with the M1 in 2020.

Apple’s chips differ from X86 in a few notable ways. RAM aka Memory is one of the most important. Historically one of the most immediate bottlenecks that you will notice or “feel” when using a computer is if it begins to run low on memory.

The OS must begin to use tricks like paging out some of the in-memory data to your disk. In the days before SSD when this meant spinning platters of your hard drive, this performance hit was enormous. It could slow to a crawl and literally “freeze up” until it was able to complete the operation.

SSD’s have closed the gap an incredible amount due to their massive jumps in both latency and overall throughput. Paging out to SSD is much “smoother” overall, but can still cause hiccups, hangs, delays etc.

As fast as SSD are, you still want to avoid running out of working memory. In fact all modern OS’s are fairly aggressive with pre-caching data INTO memory. It tries to figure out what data might be needed in the near term and, assuming there is free memory available, will load that data into memory before the CPU or GPU calls for it.

Which brings up the next important factor here, which is the GPU. For a very long time now, Graphics Processing Units have been their own dedicated stand-alone processor, connected over a data bus that talks to the CPU.

Yes, there have been “integrated graphics” from both Intel and AMD that are part of the CPU but these (in general) have been much slower than having a stand alone graphics card, for a number of reasons which we won’t really get too much into here for the sake of brevity (oops too late).

In any case the take away here is that dedicated GPU cards are very (VERY) fast on their own. Once you feed the data to them, they can process it extremely quickly. BUT they are sort of an island, in that they must then turn around and send that data back to the CPU. That data bus (PCI-E) is thoroughly trounced in speed compared to how fast the card can compute.

Oh ho ho you might say, but I can play my favorite game at 100+ fps at 4K! How slow can it be! Well if games are your only concern, then It doesn’t really matter as game developers have come up with all sorts of tricks to make the best out of this less-than-ideal scenario of having very fast graphics processing capabilities saddled to a pitifully slow bus.

Numbers time just to help put this in some sort of context. modern GPU’s have internal bandwidth of hundreds of gigs/sec. The top end workstation cards are approaching or even over 1000 GB/sec

Meanwhile as soon as you process the data and need to send it back over the PCI-E 4.0 bus you are talking about a 32 GB/sec link. oof.

PCI-E 5.0 doubles that to 64 GB/sec but still a far cry from even the 300-500 GB/sec that a mid range GPU is operating at, nevermind if you have a high-end card.

From the pcie link it gets routed to the memory controllers which then sends the data to the socketed DDR5 dimms. Without delving too much into technical details here, a typical dual-channel setup will yield around 80-90 GB/sec of main system memory bandwidth.

Faster than the PCI-E link, but still a bottleneck of its own. So if you have a workflow that involves heavy graphics compute (video processing for example) then you are in a situation where you are constantly shuttling data back and forth over these two slow links (double whammy!)

Coming around to the point now I promise. So, Apple’s approach is to say you know what, we are going to build the GPU cores directly into the CPU, and then place the memory chips on that same package.

There is no separate pool of video memory plus the system memory that traditionally would have to spend all its time transferring data from one to the other. There is only 1 single pool of unified memory that the CPU+GPU can both access directly,

Beyond this change in underlying architecture is the memory bandwidth, which starts at 120GB/sec for the base M4 and roughly doubles (actually better than double) with each tier of chip (Pro, Max) topping out at 546 GB/sec.

So the end result is a very fast, responsive system because it’s processing everything in a much more efficient manner without needless copying everything over slow bus links.

As has been true since the dawn of computing, more RAM is often the single best upgrade you can make. Yes Apple charges what they charge to upgrade the memory, but given the typical lifespan of the machines it is not outrageous as it may seem on its face. and you might just be surprised how smooth “only” 16GB can be.

It's not quite that grim, I assume you were quoting the half-duplex speeds? I'm not sure what Apple uses, but full duplex PCI-E 16X speeds are twice the numbers you quoted.
1764169051306.webp


Here are some real world M4 Pro memory benchmarks:
1764171517352.webp


Which are impressive! But not as fast as the 273GB/sec shown on paper. Of course this is also true for x86 platforms:
1764175764780.webp

From here

The total number of lanes varies by chipset of course, but if you have a system with 2x PCI-E 5.0 16X slots you have 256GB/sec of available bus bandwidth spread across two cards, which is why most applications that are extremely memory intensive are run on systems with a huge number of lanes and multiple slots and will also have more memory channels.

And yes, the reason AMD on-died the memory controller (North Bridge) back in the day was to try and remove the bandwidth penalty that imposed.

The SoC approach, which most would traditionally associate with things like tablets and cellphones, as you note, has its advantages in terms of minimizing latency, reducing power consumption and improving bandwidth in a much smaller package. The main detractor is the limit in terms of overall memory and inflexibility on upgrades, which isn't a HUGE issue with laptops, but will be for workstations.

If your workload isn't focused on just moving the most information across the bus (which most aren't), a dedicated video card is still going to be faster:
1764176163251.webp


Also worth pointing out that Apple was having SSD durability issues with the early M-based laptops because of the amount of included RAM, which thrashed the SSD's.

Being able to slap in more RAM when your workload changes certainly has value, even while giving a nod to the raw performance the ARM-based M-series CPU's offer when compared to their x86 counterparts.
 
Mostly a graphics card / GPU bottleneck. You are probably using a newer codec or the graphics card / GPU is not up to the task. Maybe if you look around you can find a better GPU that can do that well that is compatible with your current i7 Mac.

For something like this if you are on a budget you should follow the gamers and see what works, and likely go Windows or Linux using a x86 CPU. Apple's silicon using "integrated" dram is like using HBM on GPU, not quite right for large data workload and I would never do anything with it. I'm always going to favor more RAM, cheaper RAM than something not able to upgrade but small and fast.

And please if you are doing this a lot, don't get a laptop, get a desktop with a tower case for GPU slot. If you insist on getting a laptop budget for a thunderbolt GPU enclosure for an external GPU.
 
Mostly a graphics card / GPU bottleneck. You are probably using a newer codec or the graphics card / GPU is not up to the task. Maybe if you look around you can find a better GPU that can do that well that is compatible with your current i7 Mac.

For something like this if you are on a budget you should follow the gamers and see what works, and likely go Windows or Linux using a x86 CPU. Apple's silicon using "integrated" dram is like using HBM on GPU, not quite right for large data workload and I would never do anything with it. I'm always going to favor more RAM, cheaper RAM than something not able to upgrade but small and fast.

And please if you are doing this a lot, don't get a laptop, get a desktop with a tower case for GPU slot. If you insist on getting a laptop budget for a thunderbolt GPU enclosure for an external GPU.
Thanks. Unfortunately a laptop is a must because I am mobile.
 
Since you already own an apple... I'd just purchase a new macbook air and be done with it IMHO, nothing else comes close in performance/price/battery/build quality to these Mx chips for that kind of money, and windows continues to circle the drain.
 
16 GB is not enough for modern gaming, and the mac GB are not magically more/better just because they are Mac.
You could make do with 16GB, but you'd be locked out of recent AAA games (with a reasonable performance expectation of course)
And thats not even including the GPU.

Strong gaming laptops start around $3500 minimum.
Mine cost 4000 (not counting my adding another SSD) but that was 18 months ago, it had just come put at CES a few weeks earlier
Its still quite competitive though and even the latest gaming laptops have very little performancce advantage.
(Who would have though this, about an 18 month old laptop, 20 years ago when moores law was still all the rage)

It has i9 14900HF, 64GB of DDR5 RAM, 6 TB in 2 SSDs, and a RTX 4090 (the 5090s in laptop world are only incremental improvement)

I used to buy the low end laptops, but I gave up on that. Not worth the aggravation to me anymore.
 
Last edited:
I have an M1 MacBook Pro, an M2 Max Mac Studio, and M3 Pro MacBook Pro and they are all beasts as far as processing power and they do it with very little heat and power consumption. I have 16GB on the M1, 18GB on the M3 Pro, and 32GB on the M2 Max and to be honest, memory has never been a limiting factor, even with the 16GB.

It's almost weird how powerful and cool running these processors are I have done some processor intensive things with all of them.
 
Thanks. Unfortunately a laptop is a must because I am mobile.
I'm not a Mac user but if you can, try to research an external GPU enclosure and see what GPU is compatible for video processing, etc. If you are not gaming an external GPU may be ok with a laptop, and maybe a Windows PC with a GPU on the side in addition to your MacBook is what you need.
 
And please if you are doing this a lot, don't get a laptop, get a desktop with a tower case for GPU slot. If you insist on getting a laptop budget for a thunderbolt GPU enclosure for an external GPU.
This. You will always limit your CPU, GPU, memory and storage options with a laptop. Editing 4K video at 60 fps is a non-trivial task.
 
I've decided to wait for the Macbook Air with M5 processor to come out in March. Until then the struggles will go on.
Not even a Macbook Pro?

You're going to continue to struggle. The base level Mac notebook is not going to be a video editing powerhouse, M5 proc or not.

For what you're doing, I recommend a Mac Studio if you want to stick with Apple, and pair it with a high end gaming monitor.
 
Back
Top Bottom