Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

1600MHz works and runs at 1600 MacBook Pro 2011

Vudoo said:
The blue one that is out of stock is the older version. The newer version is the one that people are getting and proves to work.
Click to expand...

Thank You! I will be purchasing the newer model shortly. Hopefully it works! I'm loving my macbook pro! It's soooo powerful. Now to start saving up for a ssd :D
 
xsasha92x said:
Thank You! I will be purchasing the newer model shortly. Hopefully it works! I'm loving my macbook pro! It's soooo powerful. Now to start saving up for a ssd :D
Click to expand...

I know you said that the price difference between the 1600MHz and 1333MHz RAM is not an issue - but I have to mention that the performance increase is truly next to nothing, and it is double the price. Since you said you're saving for an SSD - just put the extra $50-60 towards that, as it will make a much bigger difference.
 
I bought the G.Skill for $62 and I got kernel panics so that was sent back.

I just installed the Kingston 1600 and no issues so far and it says 1600 in the system profiler. The Geekbench score went up by 300 points in 32 bit mode so my 2.2 is inline with the 2.3. $48 more was worth it. :D
 
I can acknowledge that the Kingston 1600 8G works at 1600 in a 2011 17" MBP while the 8 GX (XMG) runs at 1333 only (Amazon send me the wrong RAM first). Since KHX1600C9S3K2 was out of stock I ordered KHX1600C9S3P1K2 and this is now running in my MBP.

Interestingly the SPD JEDEC specs claim to go up to 1954 at 11-11-11-11.

Because of negative reports I did not get the 1866 Kingstons. At 11-11-11-11 they won't run any much faster compared to the 9-9-9-9 1600 ones, which in turn only run slightly faster compared to 7-7-7-7 1333. It's surely a speed-increase over the stock 9-9-9-9 1333 though, but with an SSD and 8 GB that's only a minor bonus in every day tasks.
 
Timur said:
I can acknowledge that the Kingston 1600 8G works at 1600 in a 2011 17" MBP while the 8 GX (XMG) runs at 1333 only (Amazon send me the wrong RAM first). Since KHX1600C9S3K2 was out of stock I ordered KHX1600C9S3P1K2 and this is now running in my MBP.

Interestingly the SPD JEDEC specs claim to go up to 1954 at 11-11-11-11.

Because of negative reports I did not get the 1866 Kingstons. At 11-11-11-11 they won't run any much faster compared to the 9-9-9-9 1600 ones, which in turn only run slightly faster compared to 7-7-7-7 1333. It's surely a speed-increase over the stock 9-9-9-9 1333 though, but with an SSD and 8 GB that's only a minor bonus in every day tasks.
Click to expand...

That's the reason why I didn't buy the 1866. I also read that the 7-7-7-7 is also unstable so it's best to stick with the 9-9-9-9.

I'm going on third day and no issues so far. It also seems more peppy as well.
 
Vudoo said:
That's the reason why I didn't buy the 1866. I also read that the 7-7-7-7 is also unstable so it's best to stick with the 9-9-9-9.

I'm going on third day and no issues so far. It also seems more peppy as well.
Click to expand...
I noticed two or three restart where the MBP would stay white and not boot further. Might have been an issue with NTFS software and/or my bootcamp partition being corrupted though. Time will tell.

The instabilities should have little to do with CAS or any of the other latencies, because translated in nanoseconds the 1600 is even faster than the 1866 (rounded results below).

1000 / 667 * 7 = 10,5 ns (1333, CAS 7)
1000 / 667 * 9 = 13,5 ns (1333, CAS 9, this is the slower factory RAM)
1000 / 800 * 9 = 11,25 ns (1600, CAS 9, this one seems to work for everyone)
1000 / 933 * 11 = 11,8 ns (1866, CAS 11)

My suspicion is that the culprit lies with Refresh to Active/Refresh Command Time (tRFCmin)", which is 110 ns (min.) on the 1333 CAS 7 and 160 ns (min.) on the 1600 CAS 9 and 1866 CAS 11. 110 ns might be a bit too little for the CAS 7 1333 as might be 160 ns for the 1866 CAS 11, while it seems to fit the 1600 CAS 9.
 
I think it will recognize the 1600MHz RAM, report the 1600MHz RAM as 1600MHz RAM, but only actually operate the RAM at 1333MHz.
 
Vudoo said:
If that was the case, how would you explain the increase in benchmarks?
Click to expand...

On Geekbench? Scores can vary by 3-5% in my experience, so your 300 pt increase could very well just be score differential.

As others have noted, the overall performance increase is miniscule, and if you're doing work where that increase would matter you should be doing it on a powerful desktop.
 
The "G" branded 1600 RAM is both detected *and* used as 1600, because its SPD Jedec spec tells the Macbook to work (Kingston also names it "Plug&Play"). The "GX" branded XMG 1600 RAM will only be used at 1333, because the MBP does not make use of the XMG specs.

I have both here and can verify that on bootcamped Windows via CPU-Z.
 
Naimfan said:
On Geekbench? Scores can vary by 3-5% in my experience, so your 300 pt increase could very well just be score differential.

As others have noted, the overall performance increase is miniscule, and if you're doing work where that increase would matter you should be doing it on a powerful desktop.
Click to expand...

That's assuming that I ran the test only once. I actually ran it multiple times and there was a minimum of 300 point difference. Even though the difference may be minuscule in your opinion, there is still a difference.

The point of this thread is to indicate that 1600 MHz works in the 2011 MBP. It's up to each individual to decide if the cost is worth it or not to them.
 
I ran several hours of Prime95 on both Windows and OS X with all available RAM allocated plus several hours of Memtest in OS X single user mode. Not a single error with my 2x 4gb Kingston 1600 CAS 9 RAM.

The maximum amount of memory being tested is only 7600 mb though, because the rest is occupied by the OS. Memtest86(+) cannot be run on Macbooks because of EFI/BIOS incompatibilities.

But I am satisfied with the outcome as it is, especially considering that the CPU has been hammering at high to maximum load during these tests as well.
 
gorskiegangsta said:
They will register at 1600, they just won't run at 1600. Only 2.2 and 2.3ghz quad i7 processors can run the memory at "full" speed. However, this won't matter, as you won't even notice the difference 99% of the time.

All that aside, Kingston is known to make some of the best quality memory chips. You can't go wrong with them.
Click to expand...

could you explain why the 1600 ram wouldn't run at 1600 on the 2.0? it seems weird to me that the same chip architecture (2.0, 2.2, 2.3) wouldn't work with the same ram.
 
Hello everyone,

Regarding the memory, I am in the midst of upgrading my MBP as well. I had 3 options that I found throughout this thread.

http://www.provantage.com/kingston-technology-khx1600c9d3k2-8g~7KINM1R9.htm

http://www.frys.com/product/6544743?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820104257&Tpk=KHX1600C9S3P1K2/8G

The first option is the cheapest by a substantial amount (~$68, as opposed to ~$80 and ~$110). However, the first option states it is 240 pin. I do not know much about the technical aspects of RAM, though I searched and found the 204 pin is generally used in laptops and 240 pin generally in desktops (if someone could help explain this to me).

My question is if anyone knows whether or not the first option would be compatible, based on this 204 vs. 240 pin discrepancy. I wanted to make sure it would work in my MBP prior to a spending decision, to make sure I do not accidentally buy something that will not work/fit in the laptop.

Thanks
 
neurophysicist said:
Hello everyone,

Regarding the memory, I am in the midst of upgrading my MBP as well. I had 3 options that I found throughout this thread.

http://www.provantage.com/kingston-technology-khx1600c9d3k2-8g~7KINM1R9.htm

http://www.frys.com/product/6544743?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820104257&Tpk=KHX1600C9S3P1K2/8G

The first option is the cheapest by a substantial amount (~$68, as opposed to ~$80 and ~$110). However, the first option states it is 240 pin. I do not know much about the technical aspects of RAM, though I searched and found the 204 pin is generally used in laptops and 240 pin generally in desktops (if someone could help explain this to me).

My question is if anyone knows whether or not the first option would be compatible, based on this 204 vs. 240 pin discrepancy. I wanted to make sure it would work in my MBP prior to a spending decision, to make sure I do not accidentally buy something that will not work/fit in the laptop.

Thanks
Click to expand...

240 pin will absolutely not work. It's for desktops and is about twice as long as laptop RAM. You need 204-pin DDR3.
 
Lion and 1600 MHz

I installed the KHX1600C9S3P1K2/8G into my macbook pro 15" 2.2 today and it seems to be working great. except for one tiny thing in Lion when i clicked on about this mac i noticed after installing the new Memory it reverted back to the snow leopard version of about this mac. is it just me or has anyone else noticed this in lion? thanks

I guess i could uninstall and reinstall the old but i just thought i would ask

:apple:2011 Macbook Pro 2.2 Ghz, 8 GB 1600 Mhz, 750 GB 5400 rpm
:apple: iphone 4
 
cantsurf said:
I installed the KHX1600C9S3P1K2/8G into my macbook pro 15" 2.2 today and it seems to be working great. except for one tiny thing in Lion when i clicked on about this mac i noticed after installing the new Memory it reverted back to the snow leopard version of about this mac. is it just me or has anyone else noticed this in lion? thanks

I guess i could uninstall and reinstall the old but i just thought i would ask

:apple:2011 Macbook Pro 2.2 Ghz, 8 GB 1600 Mhz, 750 GB 5400 rpm
:apple: iphone 4
Click to expand...

I can related to this! My 15' does exactly like your, but my 13' show the new lion ABOUT THIS MAC! weird eh?
 
silly question

now ive got a mbp early 2011 and i wanna install the full 16gb of ram is this possible (link for purchased needed if so) or am i stuck buying the two 4gb sticks and only havng 8gb? either way i dont mind but id rather just buy the 16 is it cheap so i can have the extra ram if i ever need it?

thanks
 
Patto647 said:
now ive got a mbp early 2011 and i wanna install the full 16gb of ram is this possible (link for purchased needed if so) or am i stuck buying the two 4gb sticks and only havng 8gb? either way i dont mind but id rather just buy the 16 is it cheap so i can have the extra ram if i ever need it?

thanks
Click to expand...

$1250 to go to 16GB, 8GB sodimms aren't cheap - I'd ask do you NEED it and actually understand where RAM will help, or do you just want to upgrade for the sake of it, especially at that cost?

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Apple_MacBook_MacBook_Pro/Upgrade/DDR3_1333MHz_SDRAM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back