Memory latency: cl = 11, 10 or 9 ? // HD4000

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by max321, Oct 26, 2012.

  1. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2012
    #1
    Hi, I bought a current late 2012 Mac mini (2.6 quad-core, non-server). I want to upgrade the memory to 16GB@1600MHz, but I don't know to what extend the mini will benefit from a better latency (CL). Can Mac mini use to full capacity CL better than 11? Because the Corsair's "Mac Memory Line" only offer CL=11.

    If the mini benfits: Will the HD4000 benefit too? How much will CPU benefit?


    I want to buy one of the following:

    Thanks in advance!
    max321
     
  2. macrumors 68030

    needfx

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    macrumors apparently
    #2
    man, it's a gamble getting a response on the specifics you require.

    Best of luck!
     
  3. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    #3
    I don't think the difference in memory latency is worth the money. I got 16GB 1600 MHz CL11 for 70€, CL10 would have cost 90, CL9 110€ ...
     
  4. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2012
    #4
    :D even apple support said that I should wait for tests on the internet
     
  5. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Location:
    Bath, UK.
  6. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    #6
    No, because the logic board only supports 1600 MHz.
     
  7. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #7
    CL9 is best... lower number the better.

    As for actual, noticeable difference? I have no idea. I opted to put CL9 into my MacBook Pro because it's my primary work computer (editing, animation) but I don't care what kind I put into my Mac Mini since I'm just using it for a home media server.
     
  8. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Location:
    Bath, UK.
    #8
    Yes, memory performance will make a difference to the HD 4000 IGP. Here’s a good test by Anandtech going from DDR3-1333MHz to DDR3-2400MHz on the desktop chip and benchmarking it. http://www.anandtech.com/show/6372/...333-to-ddr32400-on-ivy-bridge-igp-with-gskill
    As Anandtech point out however, it’s not just about MHz. Arguably the memory sub-timings are more important. Here’s a good article explaining memory for the uninitiated among us http://www.anandtech.com/show/3851/.

    Unfortunately with our Macs we don’t have access to the BIOS to overclock the memory – we just have to use it how it comes out the box with its standard JEDEC timings.

    I just had a quick look online, and I reckon these are the fastest decent sized DDR3 SO-DIMMS:

    1600MHz – 9-9-9-24 latency – Corsair 8GB (2x4GB) CMSX8GX3M2A1600C9
    1600MHz – 9-9-9 latency – Kingston 8GB (2x4GB) KHX1600C9S3P1K2/8G
    1600MHz – 9-9-9 latency – Kingston 16GB (2x8GB) KHX16S9P1K2/16
    1600MHz – 10-10-10-27 latency – Corsair 16GB (2x8GB) CMSX16GX3M2A1600C10
    1866MHz – 10-10-10-27 latency – Corsair 8GB (2x4GB) CMSX8GX3M2A1866C10
    1866MHz – 11-11-11 latency – Kingston 8GB (2x4GB) KHX1866C11S3P1K2/8G


    However, one thing that could be a problem is if Apple’s designed the logic board to have the low voltage DDR3/L/-RS 1.35V RAM, rather than the standard 1.5V RAM. In 1.35V, I can only see the standard Crucial 1600MHz CL11 stuff.



    That’s a shame, they worked in the 2011 Sandy Bridge Mac Minis, in the 2011 Sandy Bridge MacBook Pros. Intel only list the i7-3615QM processor in the 2012 2.3Ghz i7 Mac Mini as doing 1600MHz, but owners of a Samsung laptop with the same processor have found 1866MHz RAM to work.

    Can I ask which of the 2012 Mac Minis it was you tried 1866MHz in (maybe they have different logic boards as they seem to be running different OS X builds?), and what speeds the RAM you tried was?
     
  9. macrumors 68030

    needfx

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    macrumors apparently
    #9
    your post rocked my world!!
     
  10. macrumors 65816

    OldSchoolMacGuy

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    #10
    You really won't see a real world difference in the CL ratings when they're that close together. Just go with the least expensive option and call it a day.
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    kdoug

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Location:
    Iowa City, IA USA
    #11
  12. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2012
    #12
    Just asked OWC, why they are offering 1.35V Memory for the current Mac mini. They will "send a request to our product development team and then email you if they can provide any additional information".


    :D:D:D
     
  13. kdoug, Oct 26, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2012

    macrumors 6502a

    kdoug

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Location:
    Iowa City, IA USA
    #13

    Attached Files:

  14. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2012
    #14
  15. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Location:
    Toronto
  16. macrumors 603

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #16
    Lower latency is better, but avoid the ones with heat sinks. Just buy a standard form factor. If you have the option, go with 1.35v. Whatever you buy, test it for errors as soon as you install it.
     
  17. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    #17
    My question now is the faster ram at 8gb or slightly slower at 16gb.


    When editing I can go up to 12gb when converting files, but I know if I only had 8gb I could manage it better.

    Decisions, opinions.....?
     
  18. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    #18
    I was browsing this thread and now I'm worried that my RAM won't fit in my new mini. I've got 8gb of Corsair Vengeance RAM waiting for when the mini arrives. Will the heat sinks on this prevent it from fitting?
     
  19. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    #19
    I used 16 gigs of Corsair Vengeance RAM in mine, and it fit just fine.
     

Share This Page