CAS 9, which might explain why 1600 is more stable than the 1866 counterpart.
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.
1600MHz works and runs at 1600 MacBook Pro 2011
- Thread starter Hackintosh Sr.
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
CAS 9, which might explain why 1600 is more stable than the 1866 counterpart.
OK, so I just got my Kingston KHX1866C11S3P1K2/8G kit and swapped the memory.
The good news:
The bad news is that according to the benchmark results, there can't be any noticeable benefit of the 1866 kit. Nothing went down with the looser timings of the faster clocked kit, so at least it didn't make anything worse.
Is what I'm seeing in line with what other folks with a 2.3 are getting?
32 bit w/ 1600MHz Kingston RAM:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/416101
Total score: 10642
32 bit w/ 1866MHz Kingston RAM:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/416215
Total score: 10766
64 bit w/ 1600MHz
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/416099
Total score: 11590
64 bit w/ 1866MHz
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/416217
Total score: 11682
The good news:
The bad news is that according to the benchmark results, there can't be any noticeable benefit of the 1866 kit. Nothing went down with the looser timings of the faster clocked kit, so at least it didn't make anything worse.
Is what I'm seeing in line with what other folks with a 2.3 are getting?
32 bit w/ 1600MHz Kingston RAM:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/416101
Total score: 10642
32 bit w/ 1866MHz Kingston RAM:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/416215
Total score: 10766
64 bit w/ 1600MHz
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/416099
Total score: 11590
64 bit w/ 1866MHz
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/416217
Total score: 11682
So surly its downclocking to 1600 just showing 1866? Their would have been a difference otherwise surly?
Uh-oh.
The machine just had a kernel panic while it was sitting there idling with Chrome loaded and nothing else. I haven't had one of those since I replaced the Patriot 1600 with the Kingston 1600.
1600 is back in there now. Looks like the 1866 will be going back.
The machine just had a kernel panic while it was sitting there idling with Chrome loaded and nothing else. I haven't had one of those since I replaced the Patriot 1600 with the Kingston 1600.
1600 is back in there now. Looks like the 1866 will be going back.
Thanks for doing the troubleshooting. It looks like I will be getting the Kingston 1600.
Does anyone have any benchmarks for a 13" 2.3 i5 with 8gb (1333) vs. 8g (1600)? I'm curious to see if it's worth the extra money for the speed difference.
kindof a different question but ill throw it on here anyway. Im getting a 2011 2.2 15" with the 128gb ssd. When i get it i wanna throw a hd in the optibay could anyone give me any links to one that would be good plus the actual sleeve to replace the superdrive?
Has your machine been stable since you did the RAM upgrade?
When I upgraded this afternoon I got a kernel panic with the machine idling within minutes of installing the RAM and completing the Geekbench. I put the 1600 8 gig kit back in and the machine has been stable all night.
I don't understand your results, though. It would appear that our machines are identical. I'm puzzled at how the scores are so different. Your 64 bit 1867 score was 10810 and mine was 11682. An 872 point difference with everything the same except storage? I didn't think that storage played a role in Geekbench tests.
So, if you're saying that your machine has been stable then maybe I'll get another kit and give it another shot. I'm still curious about the wildly different scores, though.
Thanks...
The scores are funny on Geekbench, my 64bit score with 2.2ghz and 8g 1333 ram is 11111+
btw didnt you get Kernal Panics with your other 1600 ram aswell?? was going to buy the 1866 ram today untill i saw this now im thinking about holding off haha.
btw didnt you get Kernal Panics with your other 1600 ram aswell?? was going to buy the 1866 ram today untill i saw this now im thinking about holding off haha.
Last edited:
I had a lot of them with the Patriot 8 gig 1600 kit I first bought. Never had one when I swapped in the Kingston 1600 kit. Then when I installed the Kingston 1866 I got one again pretty quickly. Kingston 1600 back in here now and it's stable again.
My screenshots are on my MBP at home, but my low end 15 read 8732 with the stock 4GB of RAM that came with it and 9087 after with the Kingston Hyper RAM. It was running at 1600, by the way. Not sure if that matters to anyone (though seeing as how this thread is on page 7, it does) but figured Id share my results.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
You think the 1866 is a no go on the MacBook Pro's then? Since the SB processor only supports 1600 max I can't say I'm not surprised.
Or could it have been a bad stick??
johnnj said:
You think the 1866 is a no go on the MacBook Pro's then? Since the SB processor only supports 1600 max I can't say I'm not surprised.
Or could it have been a bad stick??
True, although the difference would probably be imperceptible, considering even the real-world differences between 1333-1600-1866 aren't exactly earth-shaking (look at my benchtests posted above). But the fact that the DIMMs are being reported as 1866 in System Profiler is proof-positive that they are indeed running at that speed. I verified this as well via CPU-Z on Win7 Ultimate x64 under BootCamp (sorry, didn't take any screen shots, since one OS's proof is as good as another's given the same machine).
Yeah, I wish I knew the answer to that question. To be honest, the improvement I saw in the bench results wasn't that great and I can't possibly see it making an actual difference in normal usage. The only "real" benefit is that I can say I have 1867 ram that works. That and a metrocard gets you a ride on the subway.
If I send the kit back for a new one, then I'm out another $40 if I do overnight each way. Then if that one exhibits the same behavior then I'm out even more shipping to send it back and I think there's a restocking fee at Newegg for memory.
I'm inclined just to send it back and that's that. I'll have to just muddle through with 1600MHz. Funny... 1066 was fast for a LONG time and it seemed to be good enough.
Looks like ill be getting 1600mhz then ^^ i know for a fact i wont see a difference but i like the numbers haha
Yeah, I wish I knew the answer to that question. To be honest, the improvement I saw in the bench results wasn't that great and I can't possibly see it making an actual difference in normal usage. The only "real" benefit is that I can say I have 1867 ram that works. That and a metrocard gets you a ride on the subway.
If I send the kit back for a new one, then I'm out another $40 if I do overnight each way. Then if that one exhibits the same behavior then I'm out even more shipping to send it back and I think there's a restocking fee at Newegg for memory.
I'm inclined just to send it back and that's that. I'll have to just muddle through with 1600MHz. Funny... 1066 was fast for a LONG time and it seemed to be good enough.
So you got a bad kit too? Hmm...QC issues? Good thing I ordered these through work and neweggbusiness, otherwise I'd be waiting a while too (they agreed to rush overnight an advance shipment for us cause we order a ton of stuff through them). BTW, anybody here who says "more kernel panics than normal"...well, ZERO is normal. I work on these things day in and day out, and if you have ANY panics at all, you have an issue, and a quick look into the logs will always confirm that. We've never seen a computer that kernel panic's once in a while just because it feels like it, there's always an underlying cause.
Right. The only time I had ever seen kernel panics happening previously was with my old machine when I was trying to use the Cisco VPN client on 10.6. It'd panic on startup. I keep my machine in verbose startup so I'd see it load the virtual adapter or whatever and the kablamo, about 60% of the time. I removed it, smooth sailing. Just then use the VPN in XP on a VM after that.
I've decided that I'll let my machine be all it can be at 1600, where it's fat and happy. I'll leave the 1867 glory to the others.
Thank you. Does it get any hotter or noisery with these? Also which Mac do you own?