2GB of ram in 1.83 Ghz Macbook quick opinion

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by dingmah, Jun 24, 2006.

  1. dingmah macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    AB
    #1
    Just installed a matched pair of 2 x 1GB DDR2 PC4200 in my 1.83 Ghz Macbook, and the performance difference is negligible. Mind you, web surfing, email, iTunes, aMSN, iPhoto isn't really anything intensive; but I can barely sense the increased performance in OS X, if any. I can open A LOT more tabs in Firefox without a single sign of hiccup, so even just that makes it a good upgrade for me.

    Unless you game and/or do a lot CPU intensive work like iDVD, or iMovie, 1.25GB of ram is more than enough. The jump from 512MB to 1.25GB is definitely a MUST DO. But 1.25GB to 2GB is not as significant, the only way you would know you have 2GB of ram is if you look in "About This Mac".

    EDIT June 25:

    I exchanged the ram for a correct pair of 2 x 1GB DDR2 PC5300, and still barely feeling any real noticeable difference.
     
  2. Shadow macrumors 68000

    Shadow

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Keele, United Kingdom
    #2
    I'm going to upgrade to 2GB of RAM in my 2.0GHz MacBook within a week. I'm hoping it to be snappier when switching between programs, and then FINALLY I can use Photoshop CS1 (without atleast 1GB its essentially unusable). For 512MB, what you do requires a lot of RAM, expeicially if you have a lot of pics in iPhoto. On my friends Mini (1.42GHz G4 w/ 512MG RAM) using Photoshop CS and something else makes it crawl (~20secs to switch apps)-but he's upgrading to 1GB soon.
     
  3. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #3
    I hope it was PC5300 DDR2-667 MHz and not PC4200 DDR2-533

    If it is DDR2-533 / PC4200, please send it back and get the right RAM
     
  4. Shadow macrumors 68000

    Shadow

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Keele, United Kingdom
    #4
    Oh, good point. will the difference be really that dramatic?
     
  5. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #5
    Well one of two things will happen; the machine will read the SPD values of the RAM modules and underclock its own buss by 20% -- which would be a hit to performance, especially on a machine with shared video RAM -- (I mean, why gain 6% performance on matched pairs only to throw away 20% performance on saving $20 with 533 MHz RAM?)

    or the machine will run the memory at 667 MHz, which is higher than the RAM was tested to run at, and at some point you will suffer from lost data as the RAM starts failing to keep up.

    In reply to your now-deleted comment Chris -- Yeah. I have been in Mac support for nearly 20 years now, and RAM is my business, so I know a bit about it. ;)

    Thanks
    Trevor
    CanadaRAM.com
     
  6. Bern macrumors 68000

    Bern

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Location:
    Australia
    #6
    So are you suggesting there is a reason why Apple specify the kind of ram in their new laptops? :rolleyes:
     

    Attached Files:

  7. dingmah thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    AB
    #7
    Whoops, I overlooked that fact. It's working great for me right now, but I will return it for the correct PC5300 ram when I get the chance. Thank you for that.
     
  8. dingmah thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    AB
    #8
    Exchanged for the correct ram, can't feel any difference from the wrong pair of PC4200 that I put in.
     
  9. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #9
    No need to worry, the Intel i945 chipset can run the ram asynchronous to the front side bus of the processor. The Core Duo (Yonah) is not bandwidth starved as some other processors are and the difference between 667Mhz or 533Mhz is neglible in the majority of applications.
     

Share This Page