Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Notebooks > MacBook

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 10, 2011, 01:49 AM   #1
Jesseeee
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: United States
Angry 8GB RAM is not a hardware limit. It is software!

Folks,

Though this forum doesn't see as much technical stuff as the one for Mac Pros, I thought you might be interested in this.

I bought 2x4GB Crucial RAM sticks so I could deal with the fact that SL 10.6.6 pages rather quickly with only 2GB of RAM.

When I installed them and then fired up several VMs, I noticed that every time I used more than 4GB of RAM, it kernel panicked. Then, when I turned it off and then on again, it stayed with a blank screen and beeped once. I reseated the RAM and then tried again. Same result; kernel panic. I did learn that after a kernel panic, if you reseat the RAM, you can boot again.

So right now you're thinking, "okay dummy, everyone knows you can't use more than 4GB in the Macbook 5,2." But hold the phone, because I booted up Windows 7, and it worked perfectly.

I ran a bunch of VMs and opened all the programs I could think of, until I had less than 1GB free. So at least 7GB was in use, and it worked great. I tried the Windows Experience or whatever it's called that assigns number values to your hardware specs. The RAM passed the test fine. I also tried another program, Performance... something or other... The RAM was fine.

[pics or it didn't happen, right?]

Note that the Total ram is 8GB, and available is 1.2GB (free).

So what this means is that any claims of "this is a hardware issue" are just not true. It could just be that the Macbook 5,2 Snow Leopard kernel is just hard-coded for 4GB, and crashes whenever trying to address RAM at any higher location.

Tests with the 64-bit kernel of Snow Leopard are pending. Tests with 64-bit linux are pending.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	8gb ram windows 7 macbook 5,2.png
Views:	190
Size:	212.2 KB
ID:	270880  

Last edited by Jesseeee; Feb 10, 2011 at 07:24 AM. Reason: highlighting critical sections of posting
Jesseeee is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2011, 07:14 AM   #2
iThinkergoiMac
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Terra
That doesn't prove that the RAM limit is software based at all. Because, under SL, it sees all 8 GB, right? From what I understand, its actual limit is 6 GB, which is probably why you're having issues with 8 GB. I have 6 GB RAM in my MacBook 3,1 and never had a single problem, even though it's over the 4 GB Apple says is the limit.

The reason you're having issues is because you've got too much RAM in your MacBook. It is definitely a hardware issue. Not sure why Windows isn't freaking out too, though.

If it were truly a software issue, it would just not function, or prevent you from seeing the extra RAM, or something like that. It's kernel panicking because of a hardware issue. This is certainly an interesting situation, though, so I'm interested to see what your OS X and Linux tests return.
__________________
13" 2009 MBP, 2.26 GHz C2D, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HDD; 2.2 GHz C2D MB, 6 GB RAM, 160 GB HDD; 32 GB iPod Touch 3G
-FWIW, my handle is iThink_ergo_iMac. There seems to be some confusion on this issue.-
iThinkergoiMac is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2011, 07:16 AM   #3
Jesseeee
Thread Starter
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: United States
Did you read the post? Windows isn't freaking out at all. It's working great. I am proving that I can use all the RAM without a kernel panic.
Jesseeee is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2011, 11:36 AM   #4
blackburn
macrumors 6502a
 
blackburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Where Judas lost it's boots.
It might be a drivers issue. Maybe the windows driver has somekind of fix for an chipset bug that may exist.

Anyway nice find
__________________
Lenovo ThinkPad + Nexus 7 (2nd Gen)
blackburn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2011, 12:06 PM   #5
altecXP
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
I thought this was common knowledge now.

THe ONLY way it would be a Hardware issue is if Apple itself crippled the hardware. the same hardware is used in MANY laptops and easily supports 8GB. Apple is the ONLY maker with 4GB and 6GB limits any more.

They falsely limit your RAM and they falsely limit you to 32-bit on a system that supports 64-bit. All just to get you to pay more for the Pro line.
__________________
Home - 13in MacBook Air: 1.7GHz i5, 4GB DDR3, 128GB SSD
Work - (not in use)2011 15in MacBook Pro: 2.2GHz i7, 8GB DDR3, 500GB HDD
(in use) 2008 15in MacBook Pro: 2.5GHz Core2Duo, 4GB DDR2, 160GB HDD
altecXP is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2011, 12:32 PM   #6
blackburn
macrumors 6502a
 
blackburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Where Judas lost it's boots.
He could try and use an hacked boot.efi, and try to run it in 64bits mode. Maybe with some more hackery try to change the model id to an macbook pro.
__________________
Lenovo ThinkPad + Nexus 7 (2nd Gen)
blackburn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2011, 12:57 PM   #7
Jesseeee
Thread Starter
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: United States
Leopard works

So I just tried doing a memory test with 8GB with Leopard, and it worked well. It appears that it is most certainly a memory management error in Snow Leopard. Maybe the way they did PAE on SL is flawed. So until I can get a working 64-bit Snow Leopard kernel to work, I'll just use Leopard and Windows7.

Summary: as of February 2011, for the Macbook 5,2 White Early 2009, 8GB RAM works on:
10.5.8 Leopard
Windows 7 x64


Does not work on:
10.6.6 Snow Leopard 32-bit
Ubuntu Lynx 32-bit (need further verification; didn't try very hard to get it to boot)
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Picture 1.png
Views:	99
Size:	512.0 KB
ID:	270932  
Jesseeee is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2011, 04:18 PM   #8
blackburn
macrumors 6502a
 
blackburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Where Judas lost it's boots.
In ubuntu you need to install an special kernel to use the full 8gb. I've posted the hacked boot.efi in another thread if you need.
__________________
Lenovo ThinkPad + Nexus 7 (2nd Gen)
blackburn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2011, 05:15 PM   #9
iThinkergoiMac
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Terra
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesseeee View Post
Did you read the post? Windows isn't freaking out at all. It's working great. I am proving that I can use all the RAM without a kernel panic.
Did you read mine?

Quote:
Originally Posted by iThinkergoiMac View Post
Not sure why Windows isn't freaking out too, though.
__________________
13" 2009 MBP, 2.26 GHz C2D, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HDD; 2.2 GHz C2D MB, 6 GB RAM, 160 GB HDD; 32 GB iPod Touch 3G
-FWIW, my handle is iThink_ergo_iMac. There seems to be some confusion on this issue.-
iThinkergoiMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2011, 06:38 PM   #10
altecXP
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by iThinkergoiMac View Post
Did you read mine?
Yours is a crock. If it was the hardware then where are the Core2Duo based WIndows laptops with the same chipsets that freak out with 8GB of RAM?

Oh wait ONLY Apples do that.

If there is ANY fault in the hardware it's in Apple motherboard design. How ever remember that the unibody MacBook used to have the same problem until 10.6.6 came out. Then it suddenly worked. Heck the 13in Alu MacBook and 1st gen 13in pro were identical laptops, but the Alu MacBook ccouldn't do 8GB the Pro could.

Apple plays these games all the time.
__________________
Home - 13in MacBook Air: 1.7GHz i5, 4GB DDR3, 128GB SSD
Work - (not in use)2011 15in MacBook Pro: 2.2GHz i7, 8GB DDR3, 500GB HDD
(in use) 2008 15in MacBook Pro: 2.5GHz Core2Duo, 4GB DDR2, 160GB HDD
altecXP is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2011, 06:40 PM   #11
chrmjenkins
macrumors 603
 
chrmjenkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: CA
8GB is the limit because 8GB sticks doesn't exist yet
__________________
Read my Apple A8, iPhone 6 preview and prediction thread here: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1770411
Twitter: @anexanhume
chrmjenkins is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2011, 10:59 PM   #12
iThinkergoiMac
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Terra
Quote:
Originally Posted by altecXP View Post
Yours is a crock. If it was the hardware then where are the Core2Duo based WIndows laptops with the same chipsets that freak out with 8GB of RAM?
If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. My understanding is that it's a hardware issue (even if artificially imposed), not software. Calling it a crock, however, does nothing to prove that point. I know of no Windows laptops with the same exact chipset as a MacBook. Because none of them are a MacBook.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that Apple may have arbitrarily imposed a RAM limit, but I'm pretty sure it's on a hardware level, not a software level. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. We learn best when we're wrong. The question here is not the morality of such a limit, but simply whether or not it exists.
__________________
13" 2009 MBP, 2.26 GHz C2D, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HDD; 2.2 GHz C2D MB, 6 GB RAM, 160 GB HDD; 32 GB iPod Touch 3G
-FWIW, my handle is iThink_ergo_iMac. There seems to be some confusion on this issue.-
iThinkergoiMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2011, 11:26 PM   #13
altecXP
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by iThinkergoiMac View Post
If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. My understanding is that it's a hardware issue (even if artificially imposed), not software. Calling it a crock, however, does nothing to prove that point. I know of no Windows laptops with the same exact chipset as a MacBook. Because none of them are a MacBook.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that Apple may have arbitrarily imposed a RAM limit, but I'm pretty sure it's on a hardware level, not a software level. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. We learn best when we're wrong. The question here is not the morality of such a limit, but simply whether or not it exists.
Exact chipset? The 9400m chipset was in quite a few PC laptops. The only change in the new macbook is the GPU in the chipset was changed to the 320m instead of the typical 310M everyone else uses. The more I look at the 320M the more it looks like a GeForce GT 325M with integrated memory instead of dedicated.

9400m = supports 8GB in every non-Apple laptop, Apple only allows 8GB to work in the Pro 13in. Limited the white/Alu Macbook to 6GB, until 10.6.6 came out.

Apple doesn't use any special chipsets that no one else does. The ONLY chance this would have been a hardware issue is if Apple altered the hardware. Which they can't do legally so they limit it in software. The only control that Apple has over the physical chipset is the placement the want it on the Logic board. The fact that an OS X update can allow 8GB to suddenly work further proves its a software error.

As for why OS X will boot and show 8GB and fail when trying to access over 6GB while Windows does not is most likely due to the way OS X and Windows talk differently to the systems EFI. I believe that OS X and the EFI(both written/heavily modified by Apple) argue when laptops Apple says dont support over 4GB when it gets to the 6GB point as they must have put a limiter in it some place. Windows probably doesn't get this error as the EFI isn't as integrated to Windows as it is to OS X.

It's similar to a car's MPH limiting. My Ford Escort can physically do over 106MPH but when it gets that fast is bucks and shudders because the computers software see's 106MPH and then starts to limit the engine by cutting fuel, and such to prevent acceleration. Without the software limit it can go to 120+MPH. Only on OS X since it can't "buck and shudder" it just locks up or crashes.
__________________
Home - 13in MacBook Air: 1.7GHz i5, 4GB DDR3, 128GB SSD
Work - (not in use)2011 15in MacBook Pro: 2.2GHz i7, 8GB DDR3, 500GB HDD
(in use) 2008 15in MacBook Pro: 2.5GHz Core2Duo, 4GB DDR2, 160GB HDD
altecXP is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2011, 06:21 AM   #14
Jesseeee
Thread Starter
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by iThinkergoiMac View Post
Did you read mine?
Oh haha, I suppose I didn't!
Jesseeee is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2011, 07:00 AM   #15
iThinkergoiMac
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Terra
Point taken, altecXP. Looks like it may be a software issue, and I was mistaken. By "exact chipset" I was referring to the whole board, really, but I guess that's probably not accurate to the phrase.

FWIW, people have been successfully getting 8 GB RAM to work in the white unibody MacBooks (Late 2009 and later) well before 10.6.6 came out.
__________________
13" 2009 MBP, 2.26 GHz C2D, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HDD; 2.2 GHz C2D MB, 6 GB RAM, 160 GB HDD; 32 GB iPod Touch 3G
-FWIW, my handle is iThink_ergo_iMac. There seems to be some confusion on this issue.-
iThinkergoiMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2011, 07:23 AM   #16
aniketroxx
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Pune
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrmjenkins View Post
8GB is the limit because 8GB sticks doesn't exist yet
ITS HERE

http://www.crucial.com/store/partspe...=CT102472AB667
aniketroxx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2011, 11:58 AM   #17
chrmjenkins
macrumors 603
 
chrmjenkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by aniketroxx View Post
That's desktop RAM
__________________
Read my Apple A8, iPhone 6 preview and prediction thread here: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1770411
Twitter: @anexanhume
chrmjenkins is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2011, 12:33 PM   #18
Jesseeee
Thread Starter
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: United States
Forget this entire thread!

While gathering data to submit a bug report to Apple, I attempted to recreate the kernel panic that I got under Snow Leopard... but couldn't. Maybe the RAM needed to be broken in, or the 2nd DIMM wasn't cooperating. I don't know. But it works now.

So, if you're a Macbook 5,2 owner, feel free to buy 2x4GB RAM sticks. It should work, after you've messed with it a whole lot.


Or maybe I'll get a kernel panic tomorrow. If that happens, I'll post on this thread.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen shot 2011-02-11 at 12.22.08 PM.png
Views:	2297
Size:	376.5 KB
ID:	271079  
Jesseeee is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2014, 09:08 AM   #19
Jkj12
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Denmark
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesseeee View Post
While gathering data to submit a bug report to Apple, I attempted to recreate the kernel panic that I got under Snow Leopard... but couldn't. Maybe the RAM needed to be broken in, or the 2nd DIMM wasn't cooperating. I don't know. But it works now.

So, if you're a Macbook 5,2 owner, feel free to buy 2x4GB RAM sticks. It should work, after you've messed with it a whole lot.


Or maybe I'll get a kernel panic tomorrow. If that happens, I'll post on this thread.
Sorry for bringing up an old thread. Will it work stable on e.g. Mavericks instead of SL?
Jkj12 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2014, 10:42 AM   #20
BrettApple
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The midwest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jkj12 View Post
Sorry for bringing up an old thread. Will it work stable on e.g. Mavericks instead of SL?
From what I can tell, it works fine now. I'm thinking it started working properly with updated firmware and the later releases of Snow Leopard. Mavericks should be fine. I had Yosemite on mine with 8GB for a test run and it was alright.

On my Late 2008 it started with a firmware update and 10.6.6 and later. I'm thinking it's similar in these 2009 models as well, since they share the same chipset for the most part.
__________________
HTC One M8 in Glamour Red | 13" rMBP | MacBook | iBook G4 | iPod Classic | iPod 5.5G | '09 Toyota Tundra 5.7L
BrettApple is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2014, 12:09 AM   #21
Jkj12
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Denmark
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrettApple View Post
On my Late 2008 it started with a firmware update and 10.6.6 and later. I'm thinking it's similar in these 2009 models as well, since they share the same chipset for the most part.
But isn't it a major difference that the late 2008 uses DDR3 and mid 2009 uses DDR2?
Jkj12 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2014, 12:32 AM   #22
BrettApple
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The midwest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jkj12 View Post
But isn't it a major difference that the late 2008 uses DDR3 and mid 2009 uses DDR2?
It's a major difference in performance and cost yes.

But I believe they use the same chipset. The MCP79 to be more specific. It supports both DDR2 and DDR3. Obviously there is a physical difference with DDR2/DDR3 in the Late 2008 vs Early 2009 model, but it's the same controller and it should be able to address 8GB of RAM on both models.

You can always try it and if it doesn't work return it. Assuming you get it from a seller that has a good return policy, and most do. Otherwise, depending on what you're using this for, 4GB may still suffice. Biggest boost is with lots of multitasking, Virtual Machines, big files in apps like the Adobe CS suite, and the like. The bottleneck in the 2009 models is going to be the 9400m GPU and then the aging Core 2 Duo. Though it's still very capable.
__________________
HTC One M8 in Glamour Red | 13" rMBP | MacBook | iBook G4 | iPod Classic | iPod 5.5G | '09 Toyota Tundra 5.7L
BrettApple is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2014, 12:35 AM   #23
Jkj12
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Denmark
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrettApple View Post
It's a major difference in performance and cost yes.

But I believe they use the same chipset. The MCP79 to be more specific. It supports both DDR2 and DDR3. Obviously there is a physical difference with DDR2/DDR3 in the Late 2008 vs Early 2009 model, but it's the same controller and it should be able to address 8GB of RAM on both models.

You can always try it and if it doesn't work return it. Assuming you get it from a seller that has a good return policy, and most do. Otherwise, depending on what you're using this for, 4GB may still suffice. Biggest boost is with lots of multitasking, Virtual Machines, big files in apps like the Adobe CS suite, and the like. The bottleneck in the 2009 models is going to be the 9400m GPU and then the aging Core 2 Duo. Though it's still very capable.
ok thanks for the help. I will check it out and see what happens.
Jkj12 is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Notebooks > MacBook

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iPad Mini: iPad rMini with yellow, less saturated screen hardware limit or defeat?? tomhwcheung iPad 4 Nov 25, 2013 02:46 PM
tablets: Nexus 7, 8gb vs 16gb hardware difference? eclipse01 Alternatives to iOS and iOS Devices 15 Aug 15, 2013 12:16 AM
It's not about hardware. It's about software that runs hardware. stu00a iPad 7 Oct 24, 2012 05:03 PM
8GB Ram limit and CPU speed comparison pierino84 MacBook Pro 3 Jun 11, 2012 08:06 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:55 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC