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.
6GB in MacBook (Pro); Yes it works. - 8GB... well...
- Thread starter ayeying
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Originally Posted by sparkie7
whats the RAM status with MBP 2.6GHz machines? Mine was the last of the "classic" 17 MBP's built in October 2008. Model 4,1. Back then the nod by this thread was 6GB RAM was ok. I install a 4GB stick + retained one of the 2GB's from Apple and the 6GB RAM has been working flawlessly ever since.
Has this changed since? -- Does anyone know if I can install another 4GB stick to bring it to 8GB without any performance issues. I'm using DDR2 SDRAM 667 MHz memory
Can anyone confirm? 6GB or 8GB for my machine..
whats the RAM status with MBP 2.6GHz machines? Mine was the last of the "classic" 17 MBP's built in October 2008. Model 4,1. Back then the nod by this thread was 6GB RAM was ok. I install a 4GB stick + retained one of the 2GB's from Apple and the 6GB RAM has been working flawlessly ever since.
Has this changed since? -- Does anyone know if I can install another 4GB stick to bring it to 8GB without any performance issues. I'm using DDR2 SDRAM 667 MHz memory
Can anyone confirm? 6GB or 8GB for my machine..
Apparently not.
I doubt it does since Apple hasn't released any firmware or software updates for the SR board, but you should give it a try and report here your results. That will help others with the 17" SR MBP.
If you read the full thread, which I admit is rather long, you'll see that 8GB has been reported to not work. Things are as they were when you first popped in your 6GB. So Leopard + Santa Rosa MBPs are limited at 6GB. You can see the official findings about all the revisions regarding the MBP line here:
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Apple_MacBook_MacBook_Pro/Upgrade
If you are not familiar, OWC is a very trustworthy company.
The only remaining fuzzy area for the Santa Rosa MBPs was the question whether Snow Leopard would unlock the "hidden potential" of the chip set and enable 8GBs of memory.
From what I've heard from a friend who tested SL with 8GB on an SR MBP, Snow Leopard started "freaking out" just as the system crossed the 4GB point as it has been reported for Leopard as well. I think it is safe to say that this is strictly a firmware or hardware implementation question - we know that there are SR notebooks that support 8GB.
I don't know if Apple would be able to manipulate the firmware so that the OS would have full access to the capabilities of the underlying hardware. If the issue is not HW implementation related, they should normally be able to do so. But even if this were the case, I doubt that Apple would go out of its way to give us the necessary firmware to unlock the full potential of the Santa Rosa chip set. After all from their point of view, SR machines are limited to 4GB instead of the juicy 6GB that we have now been accustomed to. If they were to unlock the SR machines they'd have lost an upgrade sales pitch.
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Apple_MacBook_MacBook_Pro/Upgrade
If you are not familiar, OWC is a very trustworthy company.
The only remaining fuzzy area for the Santa Rosa MBPs was the question whether Snow Leopard would unlock the "hidden potential" of the chip set and enable 8GBs of memory.
From what I've heard from a friend who tested SL with 8GB on an SR MBP, Snow Leopard started "freaking out" just as the system crossed the 4GB point as it has been reported for Leopard as well. I think it is safe to say that this is strictly a firmware or hardware implementation question - we know that there are SR notebooks that support 8GB.
I don't know if Apple would be able to manipulate the firmware so that the OS would have full access to the capabilities of the underlying hardware. If the issue is not HW implementation related, they should normally be able to do so. But even if this were the case, I doubt that Apple would go out of its way to give us the necessary firmware to unlock the full potential of the Santa Rosa chip set. After all from their point of view, SR machines are limited to 4GB instead of the juicy 6GB that we have now been accustomed to. If they were to unlock the SR machines they'd have lost an upgrade sales pitch.
really? link?
i think mine is a Penryn T9300 / T9500 MBP 4,1
PS Thanks for the reply and useful summary
Looks like I'll have to live with 6GB
Sniff sniffHi everyone,
Will this RAM work in a Unibody MBP? I don't think I'll jump to 6gb. 4 is enough for now!
http://ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=26429&vpn=CT2KIT25664BA1067&manufacture=CRUCIAL TECHNOLOGY
Cheers
Will this RAM work in a Unibody MBP? I don't think I'll jump to 6gb. 4 is enough for now!
http://ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=26429&vpn=CT2KIT25664BA1067&manufacture=CRUCIAL TECHNOLOGY
Cheers
really? link?
i think mine is a Penryn T9300 / T9500 MBP 4,1
PS Thanks for the reply and useful summary
Looks like I'll have to live with 6GB
Yeah, a Santa Rosa MBP will not be able to address 8 GB of RAM. Won't happen, not even with Snow Leopard. It's a firmware issue and it's something that Apple is not planning on fixing. It sucks but we all have to live with it.
Yeah, I don't think any of the portables prior to WWDC (except for the select unibody MBP) could support 8GB - only 6GB unofficially.
Wait... According to the Mac Rumors Guide, I have the price of a low end 15" and the processor of the low end, but the storage of the mid end, the graphics of the high end 15, and the ports of the 17". Is this possible?!??!
MBP 2.53GHz (unibody expresscard) - 6GB gives unending kernel panics
I just bought my 6GB upgrade from OWC. Put it in, zapped PRAM, restarted. Ran fine for about 10 mins. Then I opened my main VMWare VM. Kernel panic. Lost my VM - it damaged it and there was no way to salvage it. Now the computer either freaks out and freezes up or just goes kernel panic after about 10-20 mins of light use leading up to seconds after restarts.
I have tried resetting SMC, PRAM, fsdsk, etc.
The computer is just not happy with that 4GB chip in.
So experiment: I put it in my daughters slightly newer 13" MB (unibody) 2GHz and it worked fine. Now my MBP was bought off apple.com as a refurbished and hers was bought brand new from campus store.
So I can CONFIRM: 6GB won't work in every MBP that all the threads say it will....apparently an older processor chip may or may not accept the higher ram.
I just bought my 6GB upgrade from OWC. Put it in, zapped PRAM, restarted. Ran fine for about 10 mins. Then I opened my main VMWare VM. Kernel panic. Lost my VM - it damaged it and there was no way to salvage it. Now the computer either freaks out and freezes up or just goes kernel panic after about 10-20 mins of light use leading up to seconds after restarts.
I have tried resetting SMC, PRAM, fsdsk, etc.
The computer is just not happy with that 4GB chip in.
So experiment: I put it in my daughters slightly newer 13" MB (unibody) 2GHz and it worked fine. Now my MBP was bought off apple.com as a refurbished and hers was bought brand new from campus store.
So I can CONFIRM: 6GB won't work in every MBP that all the threads say it will....apparently an older processor chip may or may not accept the higher ram.
You might already tried or thought of these but wanted to list a few more options:
- Have you tried the 4GB module in both slots?
- Have you tried running only the 4GB module to account for the possibility that there may be something wrong with the 2GB module?
- Have you asked OWC for a replacement - after all they list it as compatible so they should be helping you to make this work or refund your investment. The fact that it is working with a newer MBP is no absolute indicator that there is nothing wrong with the module for your MBP. In fact these things are sometimes more about module/chipset implementation compatibility than one module working with all implementations of the same chipset.
Cheers.
I'm curious to know if anyone running the late 08 models (specifically 2.8 GHz) who has access to snow leopards latest build has tried installing 8 gigs in theirs...im thinking its hardware limited but given the speculation of snow leeopards possibilities in unlocking the use of 8 GB, and with snow leopard developer builds nearing completion, im curious if anyone could try it now and see if it works...?
I have 8gb (2x4gb crucial) in my non unibody, (early 08) 17" mbp (2.6).
So far working fine, no hicups, beach balls, etc. Running 10.5.7
Only installed for about a day or so, but Ive used FCP, photoshop, and
other regular daily use software without an issue.
Going to give it a week of normal use and sell my 2gb sticks if it continues to work this good.
So far working fine, no hicups, beach balls, etc. Running 10.5.7
Only installed for about a day or so, but Ive used FCP, photoshop, and
other regular daily use software without an issue.
Going to give it a week of normal use and sell my 2gb sticks if it continues to work this good.
non unibody, (early 08) 17" mbp (2.6)
4,1
It seems the issue lies in some reported slowdowns when you reach 4gb+ of used ram.
I ran a memtest with rember and it appeared to test & run fine using up to 7.6gb of ram.
However after that I opened a boatload of software to max it out another way and noticed a slowdown when it hit 4.15 used memory.
This could have been the ram, but Im sure it was also the way I just clicked to open 20+ applications at once .
It recognizes 8 and runs fine, good enough to leave it in.
But it would seem that 6gb might be more stable then 8 as you reach into the over 4gb use.
However, having non matched pairs seems like it would be less desirable then matching?
But on the other hand having 8gb and not really using it all is sort of a waste of money.
Maybe someone can recommend a good test (other then my opening 20 apps at once) to verify the slowdown at 4gb use?
That way I could run tests with 6 and 8 to see when it hits the wall.
Id also like to run some rendering tests to see if running not matched
pairs with 6 is slower then 2x2 matching, or even the 4x4 matching.
Forgive me if this has been posted already, I did not read all 19 pages.
Many thanks to the orginal poster for the updated info in feb, I figured it was worth a shot to see it for myself.
I would recommend anyone else about to buy another 4gb chip maybe hold off for the moment.
Im going to try and do the same testing using 6gb and see if I get the same slowdown when I hit a use over 4gb.
In either case I never had a kernal panic, or system crash.
Just contact macsales.com with their toll-free number and they will help you.
I've been using 6gb on my early 08 Macbook Pro for over a month now and it works awesome.
Steve
Your model will choke after 4 gb used with 8 gb, but not 6 gb. You have a Santa Rosa-based MBP.
That depends on what you do. Most of the hit is in video performance with integrated gpus, which is a nonfactor for MBP.
Photoshop would use it.
The app that you want is called 'pig' and was written by forum member nephilim7.
Thanks for the info caveman.
UPDATE:
COD4 and Halo do not like 8gb of ram...
Took out one of the 4s and put in a 2, no issues.
Guess they both get into the over 4gb use range maxed out.
They both always played great with the 2x2 sticks.
Wish Apple could do a firmware update or maybe help us out in snowleopard somehow.
UPDATE 2:
Opened about 25 apps with the 6gb config, all loaded fine, no slowdowns @ 4.15gb like the 8gb config produced.
With all apps opened activity monitor showed 5.89 used and 125mb unused.
UPDATE:
COD4 and Halo do not like 8gb of ram...
Took out one of the 4s and put in a 2, no issues.
Guess they both get into the over 4gb use range maxed out.
They both always played great with the 2x2 sticks.
Wish Apple could do a firmware update or maybe help us out in snowleopard somehow.
UPDATE 2:
Opened about 25 apps with the 6gb config, all loaded fine, no slowdowns @ 4.15gb like the 8gb config produced.
With all apps opened activity monitor showed 5.89 used and 125mb unused.
Shame. I have the same exact model MBP as you. Guess 6GB it is
How does this compare with 8GB? -- outta curiosity
