Think it's time to go for 4GB

Logsi

Logsi

Logsi

Soldato
Joined
19 Oct 2005
Posts
10,487
Location
Kernow
Hi there,

I have an old 2.33Ghz Macbook Pro here with 2GB of RAM. I have noticed of late that it maxes out pretty quickly and i reckon another GB would do it wonders.

I know that this model can only use 3GB of RAM which imo is retarded, (my old PM can have 8GB in. Stupid intel chipset) But i was looking at getting a 2x2GB kit to keep the dual channel goodness.

What i was wondering is what's the fastest speed RAM this macbook can take? I know that it's supposed to have PC2-5300 but i just wondered if it would take PC2-6400? Giving a minor speed increase.

Thanks
 
Just found thread on mac rumours and it says that it doesnt utilize the extra speed because of the chipset.

Is this true?

Think i'll just go for the 5300
 
I've just gone to 4Gb.

ITS EPIC!

I thought it wouldn't make that much diff but I have a 64Mb pagefile (instead of 1gb+) and I have 93 page outs compared to 93,000 page ins (that just shows that 4Gb far reduces HD activity!!)

Its soo smooth now!

100% go for it!
 
Just bought a 4GB kit 2x2GB. Went for the PC2-5300 in the end. I plumped for Saturday delivery cos im impatient. If OcUK had these in stock i would have probably bought here.

Hopefully this extra GB i can use is worth it! Aperture is so god damn sluggish it's unreal! :(

I can transfer this RAM onto my next Laptop or even sell my old RAM. It's just such a shame that the intel chipset on this model is carp and only recognizes 3GB. 4GB on my PowerMac Dual G5 is stunning, so smooth and snappy. Safari seems snappier on my PowerMac also ;)
 
running 4gb on my macbook pro 2.4 c2d and love it really fast and works nice for video editing work on the go so i dont feel bogged down on my laptop
 
4GB is the real sweet spot for Leopard, went from 1GB to 4GB in my MacBook and the speed increase was amazing when running applications like VMware Fusion.
 
TheVoice said:
I believe a 1GB and 2GB DIMM will still maintain dual channel, as there's still two DIMMs present.
Click to expand...

Are you sure?

I was always under the impression that they had to be matching DIMMs for it to work.

I really want mine to utilize the full 4GB :(
 
Buy a Santa Rosa or newer machine for 4Gb then.

Dual channel will have a close to nil performance benefit on your MBP because it's running 667MHz DIMMs on a 667MHz FSB and has discrete graphics therefore no requirement for dual channel as a single DIMM is fast enough. The MacBook (non-Pro) needs dual channel to keep the graphics card running at peak efficiency, yours doesn't.
 
MagicBoy said:
Buy a Santa Rosa or newer machine for 4Gb then.
Click to expand...

I don't have the money or time to do that at the moment.

Anyway, got my kit through today.

It recognizes there is 4GB there;

picture1jo2.png


But only uses 3Gb and a bit. Interesting....:p

picture2mh1.png
 
.Andy said:
does it feel faster then?
Click to expand...

Feel!? :p

Ummm, I'm not sure i would say faster but it doesn't seem to bog down anymore when under heavy load which is great and that is what i wanted to get rid of.

I can open loads of programs now with no HDD caching. 2GB was fine on tiger but having the 4GB on leopard is great, Aperture is great now and so is PS CS3. Haven't been able to max out the RAM yet which is good sign!

It may be a little faster due to loading more of the kernel into the RAM but it's hard to say just yet.

I'm a happy chappy though! Thumbs up from me! :D
 
I upgraded my machine to 4GB yesterday as well. (Bought the Crucial 4gb kit for £64.01).

I have the 2.5ghz Penryn MBP. It is hard to say if it definitely faster. iTunes "seems" to load quicker. And I have now allocated 1GB to my XP SP3 VMware machine.

I mainly use iTunes, Safari, VLC, FrontRow, Quicktime, Colloquay.

It's hard to do a real test as I didn't really take any measurements of any sort before the upgrade.

4gb.jpg



rp2000
 
Damn you rp, you can utilize the full 4Gb. :p

Glad i upgraded it even though i can "only" use 3.3GB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom