How to Configure M2 Macs for Video Production and Editing

Using computers for video production and editing no longer requires state-of-the-art hardware. That is a hard sentence to write, but it is most certainly true.

For more than two decades recording, editing, and playing digital video on a computer took the fastest hardware available – and then some. But no longer. Today, virtually any computer or mobile device can play and record video. While not all of them edit video equally well, even editing has become commonplace on most devices.

We only need to scroll through endless Facebook pages to realize that videos are ubiquitous.

This is not to say that, when it comes to professional work, faster computers or larger storage are not necessary. But, unlike the early years of this century where meeting the demands of video editors required Apple to keep improving its technology, those days are gone.

The state-of-the-art has moved on to other areas of computing.

When Apple silicon chips are described as simultaneously playing almost 20 streams of 8K ProRes video, you know that this hardware is more than adequate for virtually every filmmaker. That, I suspect, is why Apple no longer uses Final Cut Pro when showcasing new chips. Once a chip is fast enough, there’s not a whole lot new to show. (I mean, really, how often are you streaming more than a dozen 8K ProRes video clips in an edit?)

Instead, Apple highlights software for 3D modeling, Photoshop rendering, or compiling code. Today’s computers are more than fast enough for video editing.

NOTE: After three weeks of testing, here’s a summary of performance and configurations for the 2023 Mac mini with an M2 Pro SoC. This also links to articles specifically covering Apple Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere Pro and multicam editing with these new M2 SoCs.

Still, the new M2 family of chips are exciting.  I’m looking forward to adding an M2 system to my office in the near future. They edit smoother, render faster and output more quickly than any other system. Not so much faster than an M1 system, but DRAMATICALLY faster if you are currently running on Intel gear.

For example, I was editing a recent webinar, which used ProRes 4444 for source files. I recently souped-up my MacBook Pro system, running an M1 Pro SoC, with an SSD RAID. I was seeing render speeds up to 900 MB/second. Exports were running around 350 MB/second. Editing was smooth and I didn’t need to render to see most effects.

The system was a delight.

However, my software never used more than 50% of all CPU cores, GPUs were busy but not buried, storage could transfer files 2.5 faster than the software could create those files. In other words, I wasn’t anywhere close to maxing out my system.

Given that, here are my thoughts on hardware as you look to upgrade your system. You can spend as much as you want – but you don’t need the top-of-the-line to get your work done.

THOUGHTS ON WHAT TO BUY

Intel Systems

If you are still on an Intel system, at some point you’ll need to upgrade to Apple silicon. There are already features that only run on newer systems. This is not to say that your existing Intel gear is no good, simply that you’ll benefit from the newer hardware. The speed benefits are dramatic and instantaneous.

When you do, keep your existing Intel gear and don’t upgrade it. That way, you have an older system to refer to when you need to open an older project.

M2 – M2 Pro – M2 Max

When the Mac Studio was announced, I realized that, for video editing, the M1 Max was more than sufficient. Yes, the M1 Ultra was faster, but the M1 Max did everything we needed for virtually all editing – even that atypical 8K job.

The same reasoning applies to the M2 family. Yes, I’m sure an M2 Ultra is in the pipeline, but, as video editors we don’t need it. Other software might, but not video recording, editing, rendering or output.

Based on what I read, the M2 Max is only slightly less powerful than the M1 Ultra. And the M1 Ultra was already more than we needed. You can get your work done with any M2 chip.

The big differences between the M2, M2 Pro and M2 Max are memory bandwidth (100 GB/s vs. 200 GB/s vs. 400 GB/s), total RAM, and media engines (1 vs. 2). On these systems, the media engines support HEVC, H.264 and ProRes encoding and decoding.

NOTE: Cinema style editing benefits from the single media engine. Multicam editing will probably benefit from the second media engine in the M2 Max. However, in either case, if your media is not HEVC, H.264 or ProRes, having a media engine won’t make any difference. Switching to optimizing media or creating ProRes proxies will benefit from the speed of this built-in media engine.

CPU core counts are the same for both M2 Pro and M2 Max chips. The CPU is used for managing the interface, importing clips, editing tools and timeline, positioning and scaling clips. The GPUs are used to change the look of pixels. For example, dissolves, color grading and effects renders.

Both the M2 Pro and M2 Max are more than sufficient for 4K (and smaller frame size) editing. Both are more than sufficient for multicam editing of up to 12 cameras (provided your storage is fast enough). Larger multicam projects with larger frame sizes will benefit from using the M2 Max.

For multicam editing, the gating factor isn’t the CPU, it’s the size and speed of your storage. For any large frame size multicam editing an SSD RAID is essential.

CPU & GPU Cores

Based on watching Activity Monitor closely during an edit, I have not seen where any software – Final Cut, Premiere, or DaVinci – maxes out CPU or GPU core usage.

• For the Mac mini, I don’t see any benefit to the 12-core CPU. Feel free to get it, but you don’t need it. The 10-core M2 Pro CPU is fine.
• For the MacBook Pros, either the M2 Pro or M2 Max are excellent choices. If you can afford the Max, get it. But the Pro will do an excellent job in editing. I don’t see any advantage to the 38-core GPU system, simply because no editing software today effectively uses the 16 cores in the M1 Pro, much less the 38 cores in an M2 Max.

Remember, regardless of the number of GPU cores, the image quality is the same. More cores gets you more speed – assuming that all cores are fully involved. What I’ve seen, however, is that many cores are not busy during render or output.

RAM

• For HD editing, 16 GB of RAM is enough.
• For 4K editing, 32 GB of RAM is enough.
• For multicam editing, 64 GB of RAM is enough.

My current 16″ MacBook Pro has 32 GB of RAM and I’ve had zero problems editing. What extra RAM gets you is more file cacheing. That is, portions of clips are loaded into RAM, which makes access during editing faster. However, if you store files on the internal drive of your Mac, or an external SSD, that storage is SO fast that cacheing has only limited benefits. If you are using spinning media, you’ll benefit from more RAM. But, if you are using internal or external SSD storage, the benefits of cacheing are reduced.

My recommendation is to get a system with 32 or 64 GB of RAM. You can get more, but you won’t see a boost in performance.

Storage

Apple charges a ridiculous amount for internal SSD storage. More storage is good, however, you need to balance the cost of internal vs. external storage.

Most video projects today require multiple terabytes of storage. This means that, in most cases, you’ll need to add storage to your system.

My main editing system currently has:

• A 1 TB internal SSD
• A 5 TB external SSD RAID that I use for current project editing
• A 24 TB external spinning media RAID for intermediate project and media storage
• A 150 TB server for longer-term “cold” storage

My big change in the last few months was adding the SSD RAID for current editing. It made a big improvement in the responsiveness of my system.

My recommendation is an editing system with 1 – 2 TB of internal storage.

Other Options

I am very grateful that Apple added more ports to their hardware. That simplifies my life a lot – especially on the road. However, I’ve also found the CalDigit dock to be useful with its 13 ports of connectivity.

A 10G Ethernet connector provides faster access to servers, provided your network is configured to support the faster speed.

And while smaller screens travel more easily, I find larger screens more helpful in video editing simply because the interface is easier to see and work with.

SUMMARY

Digital video no longer requires state-of-the-art hardware. We no longer need the biggest, fastest, most powerful system to get our work done. Rather, these latest systems continue to get faster which means that we continue to save time in getting our work done.

But we don’t need to spend extra money to get the top-of-the-line. The very best no longer makes a significant difference in how long it takes to get our work done. A mid-range choice is fine.

Just my thoughts.

---

Bookmark the permalink.