1866mhz 8gb ram crashing

[Hyper-X]

I've practiced in consumer protection/warranty law, and a manufacturer is entirely within its rights to disclaim a warranty when someone uses out of spec parts, even if it is a user-serviceable part like RAM.

Apple nor any other company I've dealt with regarding RAM issues have not and will not void your product's warranty just because you didn't use the part sold by their company. If brand ABCDEFG sold RAM for your MBP and it didn't work, what Apple can do is simply deny replacing that RAM with their's. In the absolute worst case I've ever seen, the customer may be charged a small service fee for the tech to troubleshoot someone else's product, but that's incredibly rare.

Some of the people here may be or have at one point been a computer tech. I'm sure you should've seen a situation where a person would buy a machine from your shop and memory from another place. The customer would come in saying the computer's crashing, the tech could open up the machine, replace the RAM with a pair sold by their company, boot the machine up and show the customer that the machine's fine and that it's likely the 3rd party RAM causing problems.

Your MBP overall will still be under warranty, it's very likely they'll point you to the direction of the company which sold you the RAM. If you think using a 3rd party RAM into the MBP will allow Apple to terminate the notebook's warranty, that is illegal.

The best course of action IMHO is to contact the vendor which sold you the 8GB (4GB x 2) sticks of RAM then go from there. Not sure if the RAM currently installed is by OWC, but I've had good experiences dealing with them on support. If you have the OEM RAM somewhere for that MBP, an easy experiment you can try at home is to simply swap them out and see if your situation improves.

 

[revelated]

Don't mean to interrupt this rather entertaining wannabe lawyer debate but...I proffer one thing. It's really the only thing that matters.

The OP got kernel panics when he attempted to use RAM that isn't even supported by the hardware spec.

......err, what'd you THINK was going to happen?

 

[Naimfan]

When someone starts to make a claim like hinting that they're practitioners of the law, I'd expect them to be very eloquent with their choice of words.

Apple nor any other company I've dealt with regarding RAM issues have not and will not void your product's warranty just because you didn't use the part sold by their company. If brand ABCDEFG sold RAM for your MBP and it didn't work, what Apple can do is simply deny replacing that RAM with their's. In the absolute worst case I've ever seen, the customer may be charged a small service fee for the tech to troubleshoot someone else's product, but that's incredibly rare.

I'm not hinting.

You did not understand what I wrote. I did not write that using a different brand of RAM could void the warranty. What I wrote was that using a type of RAM not listed as being compatible provides sufficient grounds for Apple to disclaim the warranty. The manual provided with my 13" MBP says that RAM may be upgraded with 1333 MHz RAM only. It does not list 1600 MHz or 1866 MHz RAM. Hence, the use of anything other than 1333 MHz RAM constitutes the use of a non-compatible part (legally, the fact that 1600 MHz RAM might well work is irrelevant) that was not authorized in writing by Apple as required by the written limited warranty.

 

[Hyper-X]

I'm not hinting.

You did not understand what I wrote. I did not write that using a different brand of RAM could void the warranty. What I wrote was that using a type of RAM not listed as being compatible provides sufficient grounds for Apple to disclaim the warranty. The manual provided with my 13" MBP says that RAM may be upgraded with 1333 MHz RAM only. It does not list 1600 MHz or 1866 MHz RAM. Hence, the use of anything other than 1333 MHz RAM constitutes the use of a non-compatible part (legally, the fact that 1600 MHz RAM might well work is irrelevant) that was not authorized in writing by Apple as required by the written limited warranty.

It simply means that Apple can't guarantee that the machine will work if a user chooses to use 3rd party RAM. Not sure if you understand this but RAM speed is something the manufacturer can claim on the box, it's not a rating based on regulation of what's officially considered 1333Mhz RAM for example.

A vendor can choose to downrate/uprate their RAM to meet a certain price point or target market. In the old days of SDRAM, CAS2 PC100 memory was often sold as CAS3 PC133 even though the products were identically the same. Just so you know in case you don't, CAS3 is an inferior rating compared to CAS2.

Just because the RAM is being advertised as 1666Mhz, it doesn't mean it has to operate at that speed since RAM can't operate faster than the effective memory bandwidth of the BCLK (no longer called a FSB).

BCLK is 66.6 X 100MHz = 667MHz x DDR (double data rate) = 1333MHz effective memory speed. No RAM will operate beyond that BCLK effective memory speed regardless of what speed the actual RAM is advertised at.

 

[Naimfan]

It simply means that Apple can't guarantee that the machine will work if a user chooses to use 3rd party RAM. Not sure if you understand this but RAM speed is something the manufacturer can claim on the box, it's not a rating based on regulation of what's officially considered 1333Mhz RAM for example.

A vendor can choose to downrate/uprate their RAM to meet a certain price point or target market. In the old days of SDRAM, CAS2 PC100 memory was often sold as CAS3 PC133 even though the products were identically the same. Just so you know in case you don't, CAS3 is an inferior rating compared to CAS2.

Just because the RAM is being advertised as 1666Mhz, it doesn't mean it has to operate at that speed since RAM can't operate faster than the effective memory bandwidth of the BCLK (no longer called a FSB).

BCLK is 66.6 X 100MHz = 667MHz x DDR (double data rate) = 1333MHz effective memory speed. No RAM will operate beyond that BCLK effective memory speed regardless of what speed the actual RAM is advertised at.

Well, I'm glad you've ceded the point on warranty.

As for the rest, yep, I know all that. And as far as warranty goes, it is irrelevant, or meaningless if you prefer a non-legal term.

 

[snaky69]

Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. I've always said that RAM and hard drives ARE user replaceable parts, because Apple specifically states that they are.

However, 1866 MHz and 1600 MHz RAM are NOT listed as being "compatible" by Apple. Apple specifies 1333 MHz RAM ONLY - hence, using any other speed CAN be used by Apple to void the warranty because the computer has been modified without permission. That means no proof of damage is even necessary. Perhaps you would like to direct our attention to where Apple states that 1600 MHz RAM is "compatible?" We'll wait. I direct your attention to page 44 of "Everything Mac" booklet in the box of a new 13" Macbook Pro, which specifies 1333 MHz RAM ONLY.

So if you want to take that chance, go for it - but it's on you. Similarly, to suggest that other people take the chance is simply irresponsible.

If you'd read my post through, I was also talking about the correct spec RAM. And the worst case scenario of installing non-supported RAM is a computer that will not boot with the RAM, it still isn't damage by you, and you still haven't voided your warranty by doing so. Sure, the new RAM isn't covered by Apple, but that's normal, they didn't put it in there, you did.

----------

I'm not hinting.

You did not understand what I wrote. I did not write that using a different brand of RAM could void the warranty. What I wrote was that using a type of RAM not listed as being compatible provides sufficient grounds for Apple to disclaim the warranty. The manual provided with my 13" MBP says that RAM may be upgraded with 1333 MHz RAM only. It does not list 1600 MHz or 1866 MHz RAM. Hence, the use of anything other than 1333 MHz RAM constitutes the use of a non-compatible part (legally, the fact that 1600 MHz RAM might well work is irrelevant) that was not authorized in writing by Apple as required by the written limited warranty.

Well in that case were in agreement the whole time.

 

[imperialnavy]

...So, do you think there will be a 1866mhz version with a latency of 9 ?

I am also curious as to why the performance boost would not be noticeable according to some people. There are a number of German overclockers and gaming enthusiasts who tested faster ram (1600 and 1866 vs 1333) and they got improvements of up to 7 fps in some games. Some other games were finally playable because of the faster ram. The framerate of GTA 4 improved even more than just 7 fps. I think this could justify faster ram, right ? Sure, 7 fps isnt that much...but for those of us who are hardcore gamers, 7 fps can mean a whole lot.

 

[Naimfan]

If you'd read my post through, I was also talking about the correct spec RAM. And the worst case scenario of installing non-supported RAM is a computer that will not boot with the RAM, it still isn't damage by you, and you still haven't voided your warranty by doing so. Sure, the new RAM isn't covered by Apple, but that's normal, they didn't put it in there, you did.

Wrong. If you read carefully, you would see that I wrote the use of non-compatible RAM could be used by Apple to void the entire warranty because it constitutes an unauthorized "modification" by not using a "compatible" part. There is no requirement to show that the use of a non-compatible part caused any damage whatsoever. If you had any knowledge or understanding of warranty law you'd understand that. Clearly you don't, as your Wikipedia-fuelled mention of Moss-Magnuson demonstrates. Hence, bye.

 

[snaky69]

Wrong. If you read carefully, you would see that I wrote the use of non-compatible RAM could be used by Apple to void the entire warranty because it constitutes an unauthorized "modification" by not using a "compatible" part. There is no requirement to show that the use of a non-compatible part caused any damage whatsoever. If you had any knowledge or understanding of warranty law you'd understand that. Clearly you don't, as your Wikipedia-fuelled mention of Moss-Magnuson demonstrates. Hence, bye.

Since you seem to know best, and have seen through my wikipedia reading(have you been spying on me? Because that's not where I read about said act, though there probably is an article on it on there). Please enlighten me, I like to have culture, and I'd like not to be wrong.

Surely you'd like to share your knowledge specific to this issue so others may make educated decisions? Answering me in a condescending way as if I was a brain-dead person surely isn't helping me believe you, as anyone can say they are an attorney on the interwebs. I like being proven wrong, so long as it's backed up with facts I can later verify, I'd be happy to learn the correct interpretation of the law(because in the end, that's what it is, interpretation) in this particular case.

Should you feel like taking the time, a small paragraph or two with the gist of it would probably help me and others understand clearly where things stand.

Have a nice day.

 

[accessoriesguy]

You should look into RAM that is ECC if it is not already, it is handy for catching RAM errors and correcting them before a crash occurs.

 

[Lennyvalentin]

...So, do you think there will be a 1866mhz version with a latency of 9 ?

That's a tealeaves-reading type question. Unless one happens to be a RAM industry insider it's impossible to answer to any certainty, but considering these facts:

A - it's SODIMM format, meaning intended for laptops where performance typically (as in 99.99+ % of the time) is not a factor, and

B - it runs at 1.5V rather than 1.65,

...then probable answer is "most likely not, or not in the short term anyway".

Few DIMMs with low latency AND low voltage exist; to expect SODIMMs with such traits is maybe hoping for a bit too much.

I am also curious as to why the performance boost would not be noticeable according to some people.

I'm guessing most people here don't play much in the way of games on their MBPs. Generally the CPU runs out of its on-board cache upwards of 95-98% of the time, meaning RAM performance has a very low impact in most typical applications. There are some atypical ones - heavy maths-dependent apps like matrix multiplications, file compression, media encoding and so on where RAM speed has a much greater impact.

In games, RAM tends to have more impact because there's a lot more data involved than in most other apps. A performance increase should theoretically be a lot more visible on any system using integrated graphics, since the GPU shares main memory for textures and buffers. RAM bandwidth is one of the key factors in high graphics performance, so faster main RAM should give faster framerates.

I've not seen anyone properly explore this with the Sandy Bridge's integrated GPU though. Would be interesting to check out some real-world figures...

 

[shardey]

You should look into RAM that is ECC if it is not already, it is handy for catching RAM errors and correcting them before a crash occurs.

This is terrible advice. Only motherboards with the compatibility to run ECC or FB ram would work. Apple quit using FB dimm after they switched to ddr3 in the mac pro.

My advice is to read the reviews on newegg, as I have, and notice that the 1866 has worked in plenty of MacBooks with the i7. Just like all other ram, you will get bad modules, and sometimes you can improperly seat the ram resulting cause kernel panics.

 

[imperialnavy]

Well, these reviews are just the thing i am counting on I might be lucky and get no crashes at all.

After doing some more research however, i read that the 1866mhz CL11 version might only achieve the same (if not slower) speed as the 1600mhz CL9 version. So my theory is, that only a CL9 version of the 1866mhz one would indeed be faster than anything else. Right now however, it might also be entirely possible that the 1600mhz one is faster. What do you think ?
(According to what i have read, a 1333mhz stick with a CL of 6-7 might also be faster than a 1866mhz CL11 )

 

[Lennyvalentin]

"Faster" is a relative term when talking about memory - CL indicates access latency, while frequency dictates memory bandwidth; these are two different things that have different impact depending on what you're doing.

Saying that CL6/7 1300MHz RAM is faster than CL9 1600 isn't going to be universally true since some apps favor low latency while others favor high bandwidth. Depending on what you're doing it's doubtful it's going to be true even most of the time.

Also, I've never seen any CL6 (or even 7) 1300MHz SODIMMs, so the point is probably entirely moot anyhow. Finding CL6 1300MHz straight ol DIMM is difficult, if not entirely impossible for low-voltage memory ICs, and there's just not much market for superduper SODIMM memory.

RAM overall is an incredibly low-margin market these days. Most players there have either left it or gone bankrupt/been bought out by others. Catering to a niche of a niche of consumers isn't going to be very attractive prospect for manufacturers... It's going to be high-risk, low volume.

 

[Tim Red Beard]

You know what I find funny is that the Original Poster, asked the question, and after getting the various responses of "Ummm what did you think was going to happen when you used out of spec RAM" or "RAM that's not supported?" He just POOF disappeared!

THAT makes me chuckle.

 

[imperialnavy]

"Faster" is a relative term when talking about memory - CL indicates access latency, while frequency dictates memory bandwidth; these are two different things that have different impact depending on what you're doing.

Saying that CL6/7 1300MHz RAM is faster than CL9 1600 isn't going to be universally true since some apps favor low latency while others favor high bandwidth. Depending on what you're doing it's doubtful it's going to be true even most of the time.

Also, I've never seen any CL6 (or even 7) 1300MHz SODIMMs, so the point is probably entirely moot anyhow. Finding CL6 1300MHz straight ol DIMM is difficult, if not entirely impossible for low-voltage memory ICs, and there's just not much market for superduper SODIMM memory.

RAM overall is an incredibly low-margin market these days. Most players there have either left it or gone bankrupt/been bought out by others. Catering to a niche of a niche of consumers isn't going to be very attractive prospect for manufacturers... It's going to be high-risk, low volume.

Well, you are probably right i suppose As to my motives why i am interested in the whole memory discussion, i just want my MBP to be ready until November when Skyrim comes out. Make no mistakes, i know its already blazing fast, but i got a feeling that i will need every little bit of extra speed for Skyrim...that includes the gain of 2 to 3 frames per second in a game

Which ram would you recommend for just this endeavor then ?
1600 CL9 or 1800 CL11 ? I know there is a price difference, but as i said...every frame counts.