So I suggest the gold or silver rated ram... These are my ratings based on 16 upgrades of ram that I DIYed and 10 or more threads on macrumors, anandtech and 123 Macmini
others to be mentioned are G.Skill and Geil I have used them but in 2011 minis and 1333 speed. also pny ram in 2010 minis and 1066 speed. I never put these in 2012 minis to be sold but they have all worked in 2012 minis. Of course at the slower speeds.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
My favorite RAM vendors are Crucial and OWC. My last purchase was from Crucial and it was flawless. They have that nifty Memory Advisor tool right on the home page and a better price than OWC, so they got my business this time.
I've bought Kingston System-Specific Memory for my Mini and my MacBook Pro. Has been performing excellently. Don't know about their ValueRam, but the System specific is but a few bucks more, so why bother? I bought Crucial in the past for my Game PC, but since I won't be overclocking Macs, why pay more.
I'm a fan of Crucial. I have 16GB in my mid-2011 Mac Mini base model and it has been working flawlessly for a year. I just ordered a 2.3Ghz i7 late-2012 Mini and this time it looks like I will be using the highly rated and reliable 16GB (2 x 8GB) PC12800 CL9 Kingston HyperX dual memory kit. It costs more but with the lower CL9 timing it should add a little performance boost which is why I paid extra for the i7 Mini to begin with. If you want to save money go with the very reliable PC12800 16GB (2 x 8GB) CL11 Crucial dual kit. Both dual stick memory kits are found in the posted links above in this thread. You can also purchase online directly from the Crucial memory web site.
I wouldn't be surprised if Kingston uses the exact same chips on those 16GB (2 x 8GB) 1866Mhz CL11 modules as they do on the 1600Mhz CL9 modules. They increased the clock speed but also increased the latency from CL9 to CL11. The frequency speed increases but the memory wait states also increase. If the memory has to wait for the data to cycle to and from the CPU and/or GPU anyway then the higher frequency should help improve performance. Otherwise the higher latency negates the improvement in performance from the 266Mhz increase. I would guess that those new plug and play modules probably run in the late-2012 Mini at the same settings as the 1600Mhz CL9 memory.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I wouldn't be surprised if Kingston uses the exact same chips on those 16GB (2 x 8GB) 1866Mhz CL11 modules as they do on the 1600Mhz CL9 modules. They increased the clock speed but also increased the latency from CL9 to CL11. The frequency speed increases but the memory wait states also increase. If the memory has to wait for the data to cycle to and from the CPU and/or GPU anyway then the higher frequency should help improve performance. Otherwise the higher latency negates the improvement in performance from the 266Mhz increase.
The 1866MHz costs $5 less than the 1600MHz, if that's your concern. And as CL10 is optional for 1866MHz, unlikely to be supported by Apple and sold as SODIMM memory, that is as good as it gets on the 2013 Mac Mini.
But I misread that the OP is waiting for his/her new Mac Mini, not for the new Mac Mini, so it's Kingston HyperX Plug'n'Play 1600MHz anyways.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
The 1866MHz costs $5 less than the 1600MHz, if that's your concern. And as CL10 is optional for 1866MHz, those are as good as it gets on the 2013 Mac Mini.
But I misread that the OP is waiting for his/her new Mac Mini, not for the new Mac Mini, so it's Kingston HyperX Plug'n'Play 1600MHz anyways.
If the Haswell is designed to utilize 1866Mhz memory then those would probably be a better choice especially for the faster on board Intel GPU. It's probably a lower cost because there is less demand for a new released unknown product. It would be interesting to see Mac users report on benchmarks for that new Kinsgton HyperX installed in current late-2012 Macs compared to the 1600Mhz Kingston HyperX modules. As I mentioned above they may end up with nearly identical results.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
If the Haswell is designed to utilize 1866Mhz memory then those would probably be a better choice especially for the faster on board Intel GPU. It's probably a lower cost because there is less demand for a new released unknown product. It would be interesting to see Mac users report on benchmarks for that new Kinsgton HyperX installed in current late-2012 Macs compared to the 1600Mhz Kingston HyperX modules. As I mentioned above they may end up with nearly identical results.
Just bought a Mac mini QCore i7 2.3htz, was thinking of leaving in one 2gig and adding this 8g, which would be 10gigs? Bit of a novice with then PC specs but what does 1.5v mean in terms of heat vs performance, saw some that are 1.35v?
no but what do I know.
No one has issued any haswell pc or mac.
Haswell chip is due to launch in April-May this year. So the earliest possible mini is June My guess Aug or sept. Frankly with the new 10.8.3 update fixing crushed white issue the 2012 i7 2.3 or 2.6 is a freaking killer.
no but what do I know.
No one has issued any haswell pc or mac.
Haswell chip is due to launch in April-May this year. So the earliest possible mini is June My guess Aug or sept. Frankly with the new 10.8.3 update fixing crushed white issue the 2012 i7 2.3 or 2.6 is a freaking killer.
I don't mean to rain on anyone's Haswell hopes parade but my guess for the release of the Haswell Minis would be Spring of 2014. The 1.5 year interval would coincide with previous Mini releases and give the hardware designers enough time to test the newer systems. With most of the known issues fixed on the late-2012 Minis there's no need to rush. I am much more interested in how the development of OS X 10.9 Lynx is coming along.
Just bought a Mac mini QCore i7 2.3htz, was thinking of leaving in one 2gig and adding this 8g, which would be 10gigs? Bit of a novice with then PC specs but what does 1.5v mean in terms of heat vs performance, saw some that are 1.35v?
Usually they decrease the voltage (for example from 1.5v to 1.35v) when they shrink the die of the memory chips. They can get away with using less voltage on those smaller chips but when the process is new they usually get lesser manufacturing yields...or less working chips that are able to run at a the current standard frequency. Using the slightly higher voltage often improves the ability of the memory chips to run at higher frequencies but higher voltage isn't always optimal because they run warmer. As the manufacturing yields improve on the scaled down memory chips so do the number of chips they can produce that run at a cooler and lower voltage.
In summary there is no advantage for memory running at a lower voltage other than they generally run a little cooler and use slightly less power but when they have to they will slightly increase the voltage on early runs of a scaled down memory circuitry because it can help the memory run more reliably at a higher (faster) frequency. So you don't need to worry about 1.5v vs. 1.35v for this generation of PC3 12800 (1600Mhz) memory. There should be no performance advantage between the two volages. Either voltage should run well without getting too warm but in the future the faster frequency (1600Mhz and higher) of 1.35v DDR3 memory will become more common as the manufacturing yields improve.
Pardon my lack of knowledge on this, but is a higher latency (CL11 vs. CL9) good? Both have the same clockspeed 1600MHz.
I'm deciding on Amazon which one ram to buy:
