16GB of RAM in a Mid 2010 MacBook.

[mwhities]

Is this a fluke? I just bought 16Gs ram for my 2010 Mac mini and since it's the same specs as my 2010 Macbook, I figured I'd throw the 16Gs into my Macbook and see how far it would be until a kernel panic or something happen.

To my surprise, it started right up and went to the login screen. I figured it'd work but only see 8Gs or something a little more if any. I went into About This Mac and it read 16Gs of ram. I selected the Ram and it shows 16Gs and each slot with 8Gs sticks. I even opened up Activity Monitor an it showed all 16Gs.

I'm going to leave it in here and do tests. What's recommended way to stress the ram out or what could I do that might cause it to kernel panic? I'm going to boot off my external drive and do a CCC of my current SSD drive to see if that does anything.

See attached images.

[mwhities]

Is this something that's known or no Mid 2010 Macbook owners read this yet?

I figured a lot of people would be interested in knowing this like the 2010 Mac mini thread.

[adnbek]

Unofficially, Macs can accept more ram than what Apple states they can. They just don't guarantee that it'll work.

But if it boots fine, then nothing to worry about.

[iDutchman]

You must have the only Mid 2010 MacBook white unibody with 16GB of RAM.

It is hardware limited to 8GB. So, I still believe this is a fluke. It simply can't be true. This is wild.

I've done my fair share of tests and never got a working unit with more than 8GB.

[mwhities]

Originally Posted by adnbek

Unofficially, Macs can accept more ram than what Apple states they can. They just don't guarantee that it'll work.

But if it boots fine, then nothing to worry about.

Everything is running great. I haven't had any kernel panics or anything. I created a Win7Enterprise and gave it 4Gs. I loaded up great and showed up properly in Windows. I was able top open several apps and had the ram down to 1.6Gs free.

Originally Posted by iDutchman

You must have the only Mid 2010 MacBook white unibody with 16GB of RAM.

It is hardware limited to 8GB. So, I still believe this is a fluke. It simply can't be true. This is wild.

I've done my fair share of tests and never got a working unit with more than 8GB.

I'm wondering. Is there any tests that you can mention/recommend to test it more and/or try to break it?

Either way, I'm loving it. With 16Gs ram and the SSD drive, it's flying.

[brop52]

Originally Posted by mwhities

Everything is running great. I haven't had any kernel panics or anything. I created a Win7Enterprise and gave it 4Gs. I loaded up great and showed up properly in Windows. I was able top open several apps and had the ram down to 1.6Gs free.



I'm wondering. Is there any tests that you can mention/recommend to test it more and/or try to break it?

Either way, I'm loving it. With 16Gs ram and the SSD drive, it's flying.

It's "supposed" to be 8GB maximum from what I've seen. Interesting post.

You should run Rember, Apple Hardware test to test the RAM.

[logana]

So what ram are you using - PC8500 or faster ?

Bet it is not Corsair ???

[mwhities]

Originally Posted by brop52

It's "supposed" to be 8GB maximum from what I've seen. Interesting post.

You should run Rember, Apple Hardware test to test the RAM.

I swapped the ram out to my mid 2010 Mac mini and it works as well. I'll test it on the Mac Mini too.

Originally Posted by logana

So what ram are you using - PC8500 or faster ?

Bet it is not Corsair ???

This ram:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/140857932389...84.m1423.l2649

I also just ordered another 16Gs (2X8G) that will hopefully work as well as the ones I just bought.

I'll post my results of the hardware test in just a few.

[soapsudz]

I would love to see if 16GB is stable on the 2010 Macbook. I've outfitted mine with 8GB of 1066 MHz Kingston RAM (4GB x 2) a year ago and now with an SSD and a big hard drive in the ODD bay, it flies

16GB would be perfect for running one or two big virtual machines. Even on 8GB, with more than 50 Firefox tabs open I still have 4GB RAM free.

[RSL]

Makes sense, since it has the same chipset as the mac mini which apparently has been confirmed to use 16gb stably.

[mwhities]

Originally Posted by soapsudz

I would love to see if 16GB is stable on the 2010 Macbook. I've outfitted mine with 8GB of 1066 MHz Kingston RAM (4GB x 2) a year ago and now with an SSD and a big hard drive in the ODD bay, it flies

16GB would be perfect for running one or two big virtual machines. Even on 8GB, with more than 50 Firefox tabs open I still have 4GB RAM free.

Originally Posted by RSL

Makes sense, since it has the same chipset as the mac mini which apparently has been confirmed to use 16gb stably.

I ran it all day yesterday in my 10 MB and it ran perfectly. I did remove it to test it in my 10 Mac mini though. It's running well in it as well as I played D3 for about 6 hours with it last night.

As I stated earlier, I bought another 16Gs ram from the same seller on Ebay and I hope it works the same. If so, I'll have 16Gs in both.

I tried doing the "testmem" on the Mac Mini and had it run twice. No errors or issues. While it was running, 15Gs was "wired" and the rest seemed to be used by the normal running processes. The new ram should be in on the 19th or so, only took two days for the first set I bought. I'll add it ASAP.

If any of you want a certain test done on the system, please post it up. I'll even CCC my current setup and do whatever y'all suggest to test it. So if it messes anything up in the OS, I will have a back up still.

[throAU]

Doesn't surprise me. The chipset supports it, likely no one tested whether it would work back in 2010, because 8gb sticks didn't exist (or were prohibitively expensive - when i got my 2011, 16gb in 2x8s would have cost me $1600 - if they even existed in 2010 they would have been VERY expensive).

Nice work!


edit:
I'd say the RAM is stable enough from what you've already done to consider it as "supported".

If a machine doesn't support a given DIMM size, you'll know pretty quick.... if you DO get any errors now I'd put it down to a faulty module, rather than lack of machine support.

This is why i'm pretty confident it is likely the 2011 and 2012 MBPs will likely support 32gb. The chipset support is there, the modules just aren't available yet....

[brop52]

I looked for the modules and yeah I couldn't find any 2X8GB modules on Newegg. So that was probably the limitation. My Late 2008 model MB definitely has a maximum of 8GB. I think the 2009 iMac is the same limitation unless someone knows otherwise.

[mwhities]

Originally Posted by throAU

Doesn't surprise me. The chipset supports it, likely no one tested whether it would work back in 2010, because 8gb sticks didn't exist (or were prohibitively expensive - when i got my 2011, 16gb in 2x8s would have cost me $1600 - if they even existed in 2010 they would have been VERY expensive).

Nice work!


edit:
I'd say the RAM is stable enough from what you've already done to consider it as "supported".

If a machine doesn't support a given DIMM size, you'll know pretty quick.... if you DO get any errors now I'd put it down to a faulty module, rather than lack of machine support.

This is why i'm pretty confident it is likely the 2011 and 2012 MBPs will likely support 32gb. The chipset support is there, the modules just aren't available yet....

Does make sense. Both systems ran rock solid and I could tell a huge difference between the 8Gs and 16Gs.

That'd be nice to run 32Gs in an 11/12 mac mini. That will be one of my next purchases. (Currently looking for an older G4/5 iMac for my son or I might get a 11/12 Mac mini and retire my 09 Mac mini and give it to my son. Make the 11/12 mac mini my new media server. My 10 mac mini is going to stay my desktop for now.)

Originally Posted by brop52

I looked for the modules and yeah I couldn't find any 2X8GB modules on Newegg. So that was probably the limitation. My Late 2008 model MB definitely has a maximum of 8GB. I think the 2009 iMac is the same limitation unless someone knows otherwise.

I could try the 16Gs in my 09 Mac mini just to see. It's currently running 8Gs. I might try it when the new ram comes in. I'll research a little and see what the differences are between the 09 and 10 mac minis.

[RSL]

Originally Posted by mwhities

I could try the 16Gs in my 09 Mac mini just to see. It's currently running 8Gs. I might try it when the new ram comes in. I'll research a little and see what the differences are between the 09 and 10 mac minis.

Could there be a chipset limitation? Never heard of the 9400m supporting 16gb, but please let us know!

[mwhities]

Originally Posted by RSL

Could there be a chipset limitation? Never heard of the 9400m supporting 16gb, but please let us know!

I'm not sure, I got really busy at work yesterday and last night, my son got sick. *tired*

The ram should be here Thursday.

Expected Delivery By:
December 20, 2012
Delivery Confirmation™

I'll test it in my 09 mac mini before putting it into my Macbook. Hopefully (kinda not really) it works. if it does, I'll have to buy my third set of ram from this guy.

[Hexley]

Are you using DDR3-1066 modules?

[mwhities]

Originally Posted by Hexley

Are you using DDR3-1066 modules?

Mushkin 997019 16GB 2x8GB DDR3 PC3-8500 1066MHZ 204pin 1.5V SODIMM Laptop Memory

Yes.

[Hexley]

Thank you Michael. Btw I hotlinked your thread and screen grabs at http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1511196

I have a mid-2010 MBPro and I am hoping 16GB will also be accepted by my Mac.

[mwhities]

Originally Posted by Hexley

Thank you Michael. Btw I hotlinked your thread and screen grabs at http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1511196

I have a mid-2010 MBPro and I am hoping 16GB will also be accepted by my Mac.

You are welcome.

Mine's only a Macbook but, I assume they are technically the samething?

Thanks for linking!

EDIT: I read your post. hah

[Hexley]

Originally Posted by mwhities

You are welcome.

Mine's only a Macbook but, I assume they are technically the samething?

Thanks for linking!

Your Macbook uses a Intel P8600 chip. My late 2008 MBPro uses the same chip and my mid 2010 MBPro uses a P8800 chip. The amount of RAM a Mac can accept is based on what hardware is being used. As others have said no one probably bothered to test for compatibility because at the time 16GB was too expensive.

Thank you for being curious!

----------

You will only be able to run 32GB on a Mac mini if the 16GB modules are being sold already. So far no one's selling.

Originally Posted by mwhities

Does make sense. Both systems ran rock solid and I could tell a huge difference between the 8Gs and 16Gs.

That'd be nice to run 32Gs in an 11/12 mac mini. That will be one of my next purchases. (Currently looking for an older G4/5 iMac for my son or I might get a 11/12 Mac mini and retire my 09 Mac mini and give it to my son. Make the 11/12 mac mini my new media server. My 10 mac mini is going to stay my desktop for now.)



I could try the 16Gs in my 09 Mac mini just to see. It's currently running 8Gs. I might try it when the new ram comes in. I'll research a little and see what the differences are between the 09 and 10 mac minis.

[mwhities]

Originally Posted by Hexley

Your Macbook uses a Intel P8600 chip. My late 2008 MBPro uses the same chip and my mid 2010 MBPro uses a P8800 chip. The amount of RAM a Mac can accept is based on what hardware is being used. As others have said no one probably bothered to test for compatibility because at the time 16GB was too expensive.

Thank you for being curious!

----------

You will only be able to run 32GB on a Mac mini if the 16GB modules are being sold already. So far no one's selling.

Ahh, makes sense. I hope it works for you.

I'm going to try the 16Gs in my 2009 Mac mini just to see. It'd be nice if it worked.

Yeah, I'm sure someone will soon but, I'll be happy with 16Gs across the board.

[Hexley]

Michael, what made you decide to upgrade your Mac mini to 16GB? All the info on the web say it can only handle 8GB.

[T5BRICK]

Older Intel based systems have the memory controller located on the chipset, not the processor. Only the last few generations of i5/i7 processors actually have the memory controller on the CPU.

My point being that even though a mid-2009 and mid-2010 may have the same processor, that isn't what determines memory compatibility. The mid-2009 models use the Nvidia MCP79 chipset, this also contains the 9400m integrated graphics. The mid-2010 models use a Nvidia MCP89 chipset with the 320m integrated graphics. I assume they also made improvements to the memory controller on the newer chipset as well.

That being said, I'm tempted to try installing 16GB in my mid-2009 MBP, just to see what happens.

[Hexley]

Originally Posted by T5BRICK

That being said, I'm tempted to try installing 16GB in my mid-2009 MBP, just to see what happens.

Please do. And kindly post a screen grab at http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1511196