1333 CL9 vs 1600 CL11 Mac Mini Ram Upgrade

[arkmannj]

I'm looking to upgrade the RAM in my old Mid-2011 Mac Mini Server

Crucial has these two options that are the same price, and as far as I can tell would both work. Anyone have a suggestion on which would be better.

The only difference I really see is Faster Mhz with slower CL or slower Mhz and faster CL time. not sure which would be more important.

• DDR3 PC3-12800 • CL=11 • Unbuffered • NON-ECC • DDR3-1600 • 1.35V • 1024Meg x 64 • lead free • halogen free • for Mac

• DDR3 PC3-10600 • CL=9 • Unbuffered • NON-ECC • DDR3-1333 • 1.35V • 1024Meg x 64 • lead free • halogen free • for Mac

 

[VirtualRain]

I'm looking to upgrade the RAM in my old Mid-2011 Mac Mini Server

Crucial has these two options that are the same price, and as far as I can tell would both work. Anyone have a suggestion on which would be better.

The only difference I really see is Faster Mhz with slower CL or slower Mhz and faster CL time. not sure which would be more important.

• DDR3 PC3-12800 • CL=11 • Unbuffered • NON-ECC • DDR3-1600 • 1.35V • 1024Meg x 64 • lead free • halogen free • for Mac

• DDR3 PC3-10600 • CL=9 • Unbuffered • NON-ECC • DDR3-1333 • 1.35V • 1024Meg x 64 • lead free • halogen free • for Mac

It won't make any difference in performance. So, I would just buy whatever matches what your Mac Mini came with (1333 in the 2011 I believe) unless you might upgrade to a 2012 in the future and want to migrate your RAM... then get the 1600. It really doesn't matter.

 

[arkmannj]

Thanks!

I have 1600Mhz in the Mac Mini right now, but it was upgraded once already so I don't remember if that was the orig. speed or not.

 

[boast]

1600MHz = With an 800MHz clock = 1.25 nanoseconds * 11 ( it takes 11 column strobes) = 13.75 nanoseconds to access the data (plus the delays for everything else)

1333 MHz = With a 600MHz clock = 1.5 nanoseconds * 9 ( it takes 9 column strobes) = 13.5 nanoseconds to access the data

So technically the 1333 is 200 picoseconds faster in terms of latency.


I would look at something else to differentiate them. Are they the same brand?

 

[VirtualRain]

1600MHz = With an 800MHz clock = 1.25 nanoseconds * 11 ( it takes 11 column strobes) = 13.75 nanoseconds to access the data (plus the delays for everything else)

1333 MHz = With a 600MHz clock = 1.5 nanoseconds * 9 ( it takes 9 column strobes) = 13.5 nanoseconds to access the data

So technically the 1333 is 200 picoseconds faster in terms of latency.


I would look at something else to differentiate them. Are they the same brand?

Although we're splitting hairs (picoseconds)... and this won't matter in real-world... as you say that's just the difference in latency (delay) in initiating a data transfer. As I understand it, once it starts moving data, the 800MHz bus clock of the DDR3-1600 will feed the processor with more data, faster (e.g. higher memory bandwidth). Again, it won't make a difference, but the fact is that 1333 is picoseconds faster at initiating a transaction while the 1600 is actually about 20% faster at data transferrs.

 

[boast]

Although we're splitting hairs (picoseconds)... and this won't matter in real-world... as you say that's just the difference in latency (delay) in initiating a data transfer. As I understand it, once it starts moving data, the 800MHz bus clock of the DDR3-1600 will feed the processor with more data, faster (e.g. higher memory bandwidth). Again, it won't make a difference, but the fact is that 1333 is picoseconds faster at initiating a transaction while the 1600 is actually about 20% faster at data transferrs.

That is true. But what you would notice more (if one could even notice at all) would be the quick bursts of memory access than a large continuous transfer of data from the RAM to CPU.

(When your CPU gets the cache miss, because of course it cant store everything locally, waiting around to grab the first needed memory block is more noticeable than the continuous following data that surrounds the data you need, or whatever type of fetching algorithm the chip is using to predict data usage)

But with computers these days, thats minor nitpicking that isn't noticeable for most of the world.

 

[arkmannj]

I would look at something else to differentiate them. Are they the same brand?

As far as I can tell, other than those two specs (CL / speed) the RAM I'm looking at is completely identical, and Yep they are the same brand (Crucial)

 

[mmomega]

I am actually running this:
Corsair Vengeance 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR3 1866 MHz (PC3 15000) Laptop Memory CMSX16GX3M2A1866C10

in my 2012 Mac Mini but it is down clocked to 1600MHz.
This is my personal mini server and it runs 24/7 with no issues.

I can't say to get or not to get but this is just my experience with this RAM on this machine.

I originally bought the RAM to be an upgrade for my 2013 iMac that was on the way but decided to go with 1.35v RAM in the iMac with 32GB RAM. So I installed this 1.5v 16GB kit in the Mac Mini to try it out, after testing the RAM in the Mini for a couple weeks with no issues I just decided to keep it rather than return.

The mini is also running a Samsung 840 Pro 256 "Fusioned" with the stock 1TB drive that came with the mini to give it 1.25TB of speedy Fusion Drive goodness.

 

[brdeveloper]

Is the CL9 RAM worth it in terms os graphics performance on the Mini 2012?