RAM purchase for 2012 Mac Mini, PC3 12800 vs PC3 10600, Does it matter?

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by MrXiro, Nov 9, 2012.

  1. MrXiro, Nov 9, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2012

    macrumors 68030

    MrXiro

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #1
    I just bought a Mac Mini (2012) and noticed that it takes a different kind of RAM than the extra RAM I have on hand.

    What is on the included RAM is PC3 12800 and what I have is PC3 10600. I put the RAM in and there doesn't seem to be an issue... though my iTunes does seem pinwheel a bit. Not sure if that has to do with that I have 800gb (on the 1TB 5400rpm HDD, I have my OS on a 256gb SSD) of content or the RAM.

    Can anyone tell me the difference between the 2 types of RAM and if it's OK to use PC3-10600?
     
  2. thread starter macrumors 68030

    MrXiro

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #2
    Can anyone help me?
     
  3. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2012
    #3
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR3_SDRAM#JEDEC_standard_modules

    The PC3 12800 is basically DDR3 operating at 1600Mhz
    while PC3 10600 is basically DDR3 operating at 1333Mhz

    Theoretically the PC3 12800 is faster. But will you actually feel any 'real world' difference? Hard to say, and really up to what you're doing.

    Some people don't notice, some people do.
     
  4. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Location:
    Sweden
    #4
    The 2012 mac mini requires 1600mhz ram. Ram is cheap go for 16gb 1600mhz!
     
  5. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Location:
    Denmark
    #5
    The RAM should be fine. It just runs a bit slower (1333 MHz) than what the Ivy Bridge chipset can actually support given the opportunity (1600 MHz).

    It will have a small general impact on memory operations, including the part of the RAM set aside for the integrated HD4000 graphics. However I wonder if it will be noticable in other instances than raw benchmark numbers.

    FWIW it means your RAM runs at the same speed as what I'm having in my 2011 i7 iMac 27".

    I have no idea what to expect with an iTunes library that size. Someone else hopefully chirps in.

    If on a tight budget you should try to just stay with the current RAM.

    Please note that you should have two blocks of the same size/kind. Or else - if I understand the technology correct - the chipset will revert to single channel memory mode, which means half the speed.

    Cheers,
    Nikolaj
     
  6. macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #6
    an 80gb itunes on an hdd can be a bit slow . 1333 ram may have tight timings maybe 7 most likely 9. the 1600 ram out there can have 9 10 or 11 for timings. timings and mhz speed both affect overall speed. so a 7 timing with 1333 ram is a bit faster then an 11 timing with 1600 speed. divide timing inot mhz to get an idea.

    7 into 1333 is 190

    11 into 1600 is 145

    most likely the 1333 will win in many cases. of course if your 1333 ram had 9 timing and you purchased 1600 ram with 9 timing the 1600 wins.

    this one is fast



    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820104317

    this one is slower due to timings

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233370

    it is more complex then this but I am tired after surfing in the middle of the night for 4 hours or so.
     
  7. macrumors 65816

    dasx

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Location:
    Barcelona
    #7
    Timings were very important some time ago, but when DDR2 first came out I remember timings becoming less important and frequency more important. I guess DDR3 is just the same. Should probably test it but I'm not that into it.

    My point being, a CL of 9 is better tan 11, that's for sure, but I don't think a CL9 running at 1333MHz is better than CL11 running at 1600MHz.

    As I stated, that what I remember that happened in the transition from DDR to DDR2. Also, timings were more important in AMD machines, not with Intel's.

    Best option is, no doubt, 1600MHz CL9. Much pricey though.

    Cheers.
     
  8. macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #8
  9. macrumors 65816

    dasx

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Location:
    Barcelona
    #9
    My point exactly. I went for €84 two kingston 8GB modules. I can see myself using up to 10-14GB of memory, but I don't think I'd ever benefit from a CL9 instead of 11. What can I gain, 3s out of 1h? Bah… Not worth it.
     
  10. MrXiro, Nov 10, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2012

    thread starter macrumors 68030

    MrXiro

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #10
    Oh... I thought they both operated at 1333Mhz.

    Thanks!

    ----------

    Thank you so much for clarifying that for me! I never realized that RAM timing was so intricate.

    So if I wanted to upgrade you are saying that:

    This RAM at 1333MHz (9 latency) would be faster than This one at 1600MHz (10 latency) because of latency?

    Which would you recommend of the two? I'm on a budget... or I might not upgrade at all. Just looking at my options.


    ----------

    I took the RAM out of my iMac and put it into the Mac Mini. That is why I had that RAM laying around. I was just under the impression that they were both 1333MHz.

    Thanks for your help!
     

Share This Page