Well there ya go, confirmed. 2011 MBP will operate at 1600Mhz
I'm curious as to why Apple didn't ship them at this frequency...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MacBook Pro 2011 RAM - 1333MHz vs. 1600MHz
- Thread starter CFoss
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well there ya go, confirmed. 2011 MBP will operate at 1600Mhz
I'm curious as to why Apple didn't ship them at this frequency...
Couldn't get hold of enough of them. I don't see that many 1600Hz ram modules in the market.
That and Sandy Bridge only officially supported 1333MHz at launch. 1600MHz and up were only JEDEC rated later on.
Seems to be lots of confusion over whether or not 1600MHz RAM runs at 1600MHz on the 13" Early 2011 MacBook Pro (the one with a 2.3GHz Core i5-2415M CPU).
This is the RAM I ordered for £50:
"Kingston 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 1600MHz HyperX Plug N Play Laptop Memory Kit CL9 1.5V"
Confirmation of it working:
http://i769.photobucket.com/albums/xx338/magicMac/ScreenShot2012-03-03at111544-1.png
http://i769.photobucket.com/albums/xx338/magicMac/ScreenShot2012-03-03at111536.png
MemTest86 shows the RAM running CL 9-9-9 @ 1600MHz, and it completed one full pass without errors. I believe the stock RAM is CL 9-10-10 @ 1333MHz. This was an upgrade worth doing and I can really feel a difference in GPU performance when plugged into my external 2560x1440 display.
From the stock RAM this will give you...
* More VRAM for higher resolutions
* Faster access to VRAM (from ~14ns to ~11.5ns)
* More system RAM to cache application's and decrease loading times
* Doesn't use any more volts / doesn't decrease battery life
Hope this helps lots of people
-Jonathan
This is the RAM I ordered for £50:
"Kingston 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 1600MHz HyperX Plug N Play Laptop Memory Kit CL9 1.5V"
Confirmation of it working:
http://i769.photobucket.com/albums/xx338/magicMac/ScreenShot2012-03-03at111544-1.png
http://i769.photobucket.com/albums/xx338/magicMac/ScreenShot2012-03-03at111536.png
MemTest86 shows the RAM running CL 9-9-9 @ 1600MHz, and it completed one full pass without errors. I believe the stock RAM is CL 9-10-10 @ 1333MHz. This was an upgrade worth doing and I can really feel a difference in GPU performance when plugged into my external 2560x1440 display.
From the stock RAM this will give you...
* More VRAM for higher resolutions
* Faster access to VRAM (from ~14ns to ~11.5ns)
* More system RAM to cache application's and decrease loading times
* Doesn't use any more volts / doesn't decrease battery life
Hope this helps lots of people
-Jonathan
Last edited:
you probably want a Xeon processor to go with 16GB of RAM! - I reckon it will work if the voltage is less than 1.5 but haven't tried.
OSX is very efficient with RAM. kernel_task used about 410MB (384MB of which is VRAM) when I had 4GB of RAM and with 8GB is now using 590MB (512MB of which is VRAM) now I have 8GB of RAM.
Also, the only number you are really interested in on activity monitor is the "Wired RAM" - don't think you need more RAM because you only have 20MB or so "Free RAM" - this is because OSX will cache applications to make best use of what RAM you have. However, adding more RAM will allow OSX to cache more stuff, which is useful on laptops with 5400rpm drives.
OSX is very efficient with RAM. kernel_task used about 410MB (384MB of which is VRAM) when I had 4GB of RAM and with 8GB is now using 590MB (512MB of which is VRAM) now I have 8GB of RAM.
Also, the only number you are really interested in on activity monitor is the "Wired RAM" - don't think you need more RAM because you only have 20MB or so "Free RAM" - this is because OSX will cache applications to make best use of what RAM you have. However, adding more RAM will allow OSX to cache more stuff, which is useful on laptops with 5400rpm drives.
I just installed the Corsair Vengeance 2x8gb 1600mhz on my MBP late 2011 (17" 2.5ghz). Using NovaBench the performance is up from 8800 to 9130, in Windows 7 native from 7.6 to 7.9 (maximum allowed). Before I had 2 Kingston Mac memory 2x8gb 1333. I often use my MBP running 2 or 3 parallels VM, so any memory performance incerase is appreciate... actually I don't see a huge improvement, but they're working well, stable and 100% recognised by the system.
Hey guys,
Hopefully this will help. With a late 2011 17".
THERE IS NO PROBLEM, AT ALL, RUNNING 1600 SPEED RAM.
(1) I have a very late 17" macbook Pro. (It is actually the somewhat rare 2.5 quad model.) One of the very last ones made.
(2) It comes with 1333 ram
(3) I swapped in 1600 ram
(4) IT IS ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN, THAT, THE MACHINE RUNS MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH FASTER when you have 1600 speed ram.
(Indeed, it runs 1600 / 1333 = 1.20x faster on all memory operations - it's just that simple and obvious. It's strange that some are suggesting there will be "no difference" etc. The difference is VERY SUBSTANTIAL -- like 20%)
I did A NUMBER OF TESTS back-and-fore swapping the slow and fast ram.
and it is very, very obvious, the speed difference.
Most operations on computers are just memory bound - everything from startup to rendering and the like is quicker - obviously and clearly quicker - with faster ram.
(5) I have had utterly no problems running the faster ram. It reports and runs the ram utterly normally, no problem.
(6) These machines cost thousands, and ram cost a few dollars - there seems very little reason you wouldn't do this.
(7) I do have one of the very last 17" mbp. (It was "old new stock" - I bought it unused in March 2013.) So, it's possible that OLDER 17" mbp will not run 1600 speed RAM. But, I mean it costs like $100 to try, on a fantastic machine worth $1000s, so it's a huge win at low cost if it works.
I hope this helps future readers!!!!
Cheers
Hopefully this will help. With a late 2011 17".
THERE IS NO PROBLEM, AT ALL, RUNNING 1600 SPEED RAM.
(1) I have a very late 17" macbook Pro. (It is actually the somewhat rare 2.5 quad model.) One of the very last ones made.
(2) It comes with 1333 ram
(3) I swapped in 1600 ram
(4) IT IS ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN, THAT, THE MACHINE RUNS MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH FASTER when you have 1600 speed ram.
(Indeed, it runs 1600 / 1333 = 1.20x faster on all memory operations - it's just that simple and obvious. It's strange that some are suggesting there will be "no difference" etc. The difference is VERY SUBSTANTIAL -- like 20%)
I did A NUMBER OF TESTS back-and-fore swapping the slow and fast ram.
and it is very, very obvious, the speed difference.
Most operations on computers are just memory bound - everything from startup to rendering and the like is quicker - obviously and clearly quicker - with faster ram.
(5) I have had utterly no problems running the faster ram. It reports and runs the ram utterly normally, no problem.
(6) These machines cost thousands, and ram cost a few dollars - there seems very little reason you wouldn't do this.
(7) I do have one of the very last 17" mbp. (It was "old new stock" - I bought it unused in March 2013.) So, it's possible that OLDER 17" mbp will not run 1600 speed RAM. But, I mean it costs like $100 to try, on a fantastic machine worth $1000s, so it's a huge win at low cost if it works.
I hope this helps future readers!!!!
Cheers
i'm glad my post helped someone.wow, 2 years later and I still use that macbook with it's upgraded RAM as my main computer.
Jonny
Hey I'm gonna go for Kingston HyperX Pnp LoVo 16 GB Kit (2x8 GB) 1600MHz DDR3 PC3-12800 Non-ECC CL9 SODIMM 1.35V Notebook Memory KHX16LS9P1K2/16 it will work the same as 8 gb you have?
Hey, still running OK?
I heard mixed feedback as to compatibility.. but you have the exact same model Mac as me!
Cool.. well, mine's an early-2011 MacBook Pro i5 with a 1TB SSD and 8GB of 1333MHZ RAM.Yeah I actually gave this machine to my family but it's still working well
You think the 16GB of 1600MHZ RAM will help in Final Cut Pro X at all?