2011 i5 13" 4GB vs 8GB w/Geekbench Score

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Floodly, Mar 2, 2011.

  1. Floodly macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2011
    #1
  2. Hackintosh Sr. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    #2
    Thanks for taking the time to post. Good to know
     
  3. melterx12 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    #3
    I don't understand why people get 8GB of RAM for a laptop. On my desktop PC (GTX 580, 4GB RAM, core i7 860) the most RAM I have ever seen being used was about 2.5GB, when playing CoD: Black Ops + having multiple applications running in the background.
     
  4. Adidas Addict macrumors 65816

    Adidas Addict

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Location:
    England
    #4
    Everyones usage is different. Personally 4GB is enough for me, but I can see why heavy users need more.
     
  5. evaporateddwarf macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    #5
    Graphics and audio tax things pretty quick. If you're running waves on top of effects for guitar, midi patches, plus all the regular tracks, etc., it isn't hard to eat up a large chunk of ram.
     
  6. dagamer34 macrumors 65816

    dagamer34

    Joined:
    May 1, 2007
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #6
    Parallels for Mac slows down with less than 4GB, and you have a bunch of tabs open in Safari, you'll notice a difference from 4GB to 8GB.
     
  7. grahamnp macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #7
    When I use CS5 + Lightroom, they can gobble up 3-4GB between them and this isn't even a super heavy workload situation, I'm a fairly light user. Also, VMware/Parallels uses a huge amount of RAM. RAM is so cheap nowadays, if you have the slightest reason you may as well go for it.
     
  8. billgates99 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #8
    64-bit applications like CS5 apps can make use of massive amounts of RAM. Really helps video encoding, working with huge image files, rendering and other tasks.

    32-bit applications like Final Cut, various games, etc., do not benefit from more than 4GB RAM.
     
  9. macduke macrumors 604

    macduke

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Location:
    Central U.S.
    #9
    Yeah, CS5 is a huge resource hog. My 8GB kit comes in the mail tomorrow from NewEgg. $83 shipped. Hopefully before 12:30 so I can install it before I go to class for the rest of the day.

    I just flipped my new ThunderBook over, expecting to find some weird hex screws (which I believe I have a bit for somewhere that I would have to search for), but they are just regular screws? Crazy. If the memory arrives with little time to spare before class (and UPS generally arrives around noon), I might just do surgery on the table in class. Not in marketing though! In image design class where we have large tables for working. Lots of CS5 happening tomorrow. Want to put this baby through it's paces for the first time.
     
  10. applecores macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    #10
    I thought the performance improvement might be psychosomatic, so I created my own little benchmark test, an action (macro) made up of series of Photoshop filters applied to three different files of varying sizes, and timed them before and after the 8gb upgrade.

    I restarted Photoshop after each test to ensure a clean scratch disk.

    13" i5 2.3

    Before:
    File 1: 198 sec.
    File 2: 8 sec.
    File 3: 79 sec.

    After (8gb RAM):
    File 1: 176 sec.
    File 2: 2 sec.
    File 3: 30 sec.

    File 1: 960.3 mb
    File 2: 72.6 mb
    File 3: 338.6 mb

    Not very scientific, but it put my mind at ease: I didn't blow a hundred bucks just to make myself feel better.

    I was surprised that the performance increase was so little with the largest file, but it makes sense now that I think about it: the PS scratch disk may be taxing the RAM even at 8gb with a file that's nearly a gig.

    In any case, most of my work falls in between the second and third files, which both saw significant speed increases.
     
  11. Ccrew macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    #11
    That's $ well spent from what I see of the #'s.

    Interesting that you and I have entirely different Geekbench scores both before and after.
     
  12. applecores macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    #12
    I didn't post my Geekbench scores. You must be thinking of someone else.

    Before, they ranged from 5914-5962. After, I think it was about 6020. Not a significant bump.
     
  13. Ramasjang macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    #13
    Hi

    I have the 2011 i5 13" MacBook Pro, upgraded with 8GB Corsair and 500GB Seagate Momentus XT SD24 harddrive.
    My Geekbench is 6439
     

    Attached Files:

  14. Tyrion macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    #14
    Even when I'm just using Safari and Word I sometimes have only 25MB (!) left of my 4 GB. Both apps probably aren't considered "pro" applications by most people, but they're serious memory hogs.
     
  15. sioannou macrumors member

    sioannou

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Location:
    Nicosia Cyprus
    #15

    Actually , from what it seems the double ram does not justify the extra cost. Always depending what kind of applications you are using but I think its extremely hard for anyone to fill 8gb of RAM. Also there is a contrast in the ram and the cpu. What i am saying is that even if you use applications that fill up the 8gb ram its impossible for the cpu to manage effectively applications and run them parallel that require so much ram . Anyway thanks for the benchmark .
     
  16. rmitchell248 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Location:
    Liebsthal, Germany
    #16
    open CS5 and LR3 and actually work on some photos and you will use up a minimum of 12GB RAM very quickly
     
  17. eagle63 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2011
    #17
    As a software developer, it's not hard at all to use 8gb. If you're working on a large application with your tools open, app server, etc, it's easy to blow through that much ram. I would imagine graphic designers or anything else that requires professional tools would also chew up that much ram. If you're just surfing or playing games, then no. And no, the CPU has no problem "managing" big applications.
     
  18. 1BadMac macrumors 6502

    1BadMac

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    #18
    RAM has been getting pretty cheap. Just this week, I picked up the 8GB Kit NewEgg had on special for $63 shipped. Considering the new 13" now sets aside 384 MB vs 256 MB in the previous gen, this was a no-brainer upgrade for me as I run VM's and utilize CS5, both of which can easily eat up 4GB.

    It certainly won't "double your performance" - but 8GB is easily worth $63. :)
     
  19. jetblk328i macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    #19
    Wait where can we get ram for roughly 75 bucks? Is it 1066 or 1333?
     
  20. 1BadMac macrumors 6502

    1BadMac

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    #20
    NewEgg ran a shell shocker earlier this week - 1333 8th kit for $63. They are back up to $79 -83. Keep your eye on buy.com, newegg, etc and you'll be able to pick up 1333 for around this range.
     
  21. Alonzo84 macrumors 6502a

    Alonzo84

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #21
    Wow! My stock i5 13" scored 5947. I am assuming the hybrid drive is the main cause of your geekbench score. I was looking into that drive but read a lot of posts from people who are suffering huge decreases in battery life. Have you had any issues thus far with battery, heat, noise?
     
  22. alust2013 macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
    #22
    It isn't because of the drive, as Geekbench doesn't take the hard drive into account at all. It's likely due to the memory.
     
  23. sporadicMotion macrumors 65816

    sporadicMotion

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Location:
    Your girlfriends place
    #23
    That's a 64 bit score. They always come in higher.
     
  24. Benito macrumors 6502

    Benito

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    #24
    RAM is so cheap at the moment, so for those of us who often have many apps open including a virtual machine having 8 G RAM is a good idea.
     
  25. menez macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    #25
    Only problem with that Seagate hybrid HDD is that its not good for audio... you will get a lot of errors from it... I wonder if theres another company that will release perhaps atleast 16gb SSD + HDD.. that should fix the issues.

    Maybe Seagate updated it to work with audio already? Dunno I read many complaints.

    I am thinking about getting 1600mhz 8GB ram for 100 bucks from NewEgg.
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ..._re=1600_laptop_memory-_-20-104-230-_-Product

    Only a few dollars more and faster speed... which this computer seems to support from boot up to other apps
     

Share This Page