2011 Mac Mini Server RAM @ 1867MHz

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by shortcut3d, Sep 26, 2011.

  1. shortcut3d macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2011
    #1
    I just received 8GB (4GBx2) Kingston HyperX PnP 1867MHz RAM and began testing.

    Under Windows 7 x64 the memory experience score is a perfect 7.9 :D

    Geekbench 64-bit score is 9762 compared to the iMac in my signature with 32GB of RAM Geekbench score of 10712.

    I'm running Rember to check stability.

    Geekbench, Rember and System Profiler all report it's at 1867MHz.
     
  2. jamesryanbell macrumors 68020

    jamesryanbell

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    #2
    I didn't know that would even work in the new Minis.
     
  3. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #3
    the ram needs to be tested in windows by playing a game that pushes the intel graphics hard. it may be that you can boost the graphics by as much as 30-40 percent. this would make the server even better then anyone ever thought it would be when playing games. if you make one hdd for windows and one for mac you could have an amazing machine.

    put windows on one hdd and mac on the other test a game on each hdd osx then pull the 1867 ram and put the 1333 ram in.. it would be nice if you get a big difference in performance.
     
  4. reputationZed, Sep 27, 2011
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2011

    reputationZed macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Location:
    34°55′42″N 80°44′41″W (34.
    #4
    I question if your memory is really running at 1876 MGhz. I suspect that System Profiler is simply reading the the speed the modules are rated at not the speed they are actually running. Geekbench is just pulling its information from System Profiler. Can't comment on Rember as I've never used it.

    There are two 2011 Mac Mini Servers on Geekbench browser, both have 8GB of RAM running at 1333, one scored 9635 the other 9674. The performance boost your seeing over the base MM sever is due to the increased amount of RAM, not from a higher speed.

    http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=mac+mini+server
     
  5. reputationZed macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Location:
    34°55′42″N 80°44′41″W (34.
    #5
    Just read this on NewEggs site

    Which would seem to imply that the memory could be running at 1867, the following casts some doubt on that though
    Apple computers use EFI rather than a BIOS, and the Apple EFI is locked down, no user options that I know of. Even if the memory is running at 1867 it doesn't seem to be giving you any better performance than you would have if you installed 8GB of 1333.
     
  6. shortcut3d thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2011
    #6
    The MBP forum has confirmed that the memory is indeed running at a higher speed. The problem appears that the 2.0 i7 Quad-core may only be able to take advantage of 1600MHz. Some believe that the 2.2 GHz i7 or 2.3 GHz i7 would be required for 1866 MHz. Although the RAM is actually running at 1866 MHz.

    My Geekbench scores may be off. I can re-run before I blow out the OSX partition. The Mini's are purely Windows 7 machine.

    The Windows 7 index does seem to point to the memory being clocked higher an increase from 7.2 to 7.9 (perfect score). The graphics card took a minor bump from 6.2 to 6.3 but I was running 16GB prior and Windows 7 appears to allocate 1.5GB to the video card with 16GB.

    I might try a game under Windows this weekend.
     
  7. reputationZed macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Location:
    34°55′42″N 80°44′41″W (34.
    #7
    I'm curious as to how they verified RAM speed. Would you be able to post a link to the MBP discussion, I did a search but couldn't find anything.

    If you get a chance to post the game results, please do so. I'm interested in seeing what kind of performance your getting. My MMserver and 8GB of 1333 RAM should show up tomorrow. I'll try to run e few benchmarks this weekend and see how we compare.
     
  8. Haifisch86 macrumors newbie

    Haifisch86

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #8
    That's very interesting! I didn't know PC memory worked in Macs...:confused:
     
  9. gotzero macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Location:
    Mid-Atlantic, US
    #9
    Thanks for the info! I just got a 2011 mini server and am looking for RAM. I guess I will get the faster clock.
     
  10. alust2013 macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
    #10
    PCs and Macs use the same RAM. Apple branded RAM is just manufacturers taking advantage of people not knowing that they're the same and charging more.

    I am surprised though that 1867MHz works in the new mini. As per Intel, it's only supposed to support 1333MHz. Interesting.
     
  11. shortcut3d thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2011
    #11
    Intel's documentation is poor and changes between revisions. There is also the processor's access speed to DMI vs memory's. The benefit of faster memory would be limited. However, Windows experience score went to a perfect 7.9 and there was a little boost in the IGP score as well. This indicates the memory is actually at speed. There are still questions around the real world benefit / gain.

    I'm going to try it in a dual core i7 mac mini in a few days. My guess is the PnP will set it to 1333MHz.

    Geekbench scores tend to weigh more on capacity vs speed.
     
  12. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #12
    I found documents on the server cpu and on the intel graphics that suggest 1600 will work. If he is getting 1867ghz it would make the server a very nice piece of gear.
     
  13. alust2013 macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
    #13
    I just saw a chart that showed supported RAM speeds, and for whatever reason, the minimum CPU to support 1600 was the 2.2 i7 quad. Clearly, that was incorrect.
     
  14. reputationZed macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Location:
    34°55′42″N 80°44′41″W (34.
    #14

    To be honest I'm still leaning towards the point of view that the performance gain shortcut is seeing has more to do with upgrading from 4GB to 8GB than it does from increasing the RAM speed from 1333 to 1837 the performance gain shortcut. While there may be some slight additional gain from the memory speed keep in mind that performance is coming at a relatively high cost. The 8 GB of 1837 memory that allowed shortcut to hit 9762 in Geekbench cost $129, 8 GB of 1333 which is hitting 9672 in Geekbench costs about $45. In other words a 1% increase in Geekbench performance is costing you nearly three times as much.

    The increase in 90 Geekpoints that shortcut saw may not even be indicative of an actual performance gain, and may in fact be due to variations brtween GB 2.2 which is the version shortcut used and 2.1.13 which is the version the Mac mini's with 8GB of 1333 was run.


    From the GB web site -
    One thing about the results, though, is that they're from different versions of Geekbench (2.1.13 vs 2.2.1). There are some changes in the individual tests from Geekbench 2.1 to Geekbench 2.2 that might cause the discrepancy you're seeing, so in the meantime I'd recommend running the same version of Geekbench on both machines or finding results from the same version of Geekbench.
     
  15. shortcut3d thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2011
    #15
    I ran test under Windows 7 x64:

    64 bit 11622
    32 bit 8654

    Apparently Windows benches higher?
     
  16. reputationZed macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Location:
    34°55′42″N 80°44′41″W (34.
    #16
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

    That's an interesting observation and something I hadn't really thought of. I guess it's possible. I'll take a look on GBs FAQ and see if Win vs OSX results are Apples to Apples or Oranges to Apples.
     
  17. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #17
    shhhh don't let anyone know how good it is with windows 7! I am coming to the conclusion that these machines run windows 7 better then they run lion. too bad they won't let snow leopard run on them correctly. as I think snow is better then lion.
     
  18. shortcut3d thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2011
    #18
    With AHCI enabled I get 7.4/7.9/6.3/6.3/7.9 Windows performance index score. Pretty insane results for a little box.
     
  19. DSpawnZ macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2008
    Location:
    Argentina
    #19
    Nice to see they work. I'm looking to upgrade my 2.5 i5 mini to 8 Gb.
    One question, how hot do they get?. HyperX memory has a reputation of running pretty hot.
    Do you hear that the fan is running louder?.
    Some users has been experiencing notebook hangs and resets due to higher temps using this modules.

    Sorry for my english.

    Cheers.
     
  20. shortcut3d thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2011
    #20
    So far so good. I ran a stress test using Geekbench without issue. I also ran Rember 4 pass which is a few hours and passed. The fans never got so loud they were annoying, but they were noticeable. One machine has been up 24/7 since Tuesday. The second has been up and down due to Windows Media Center tweaking with HDHomerRun prime.
     
  21. reputationZed, Oct 1, 2011
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2011

    reputationZed macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Location:
    34°55′42″N 80°44′41″W (34.
    #21
    I did some digging around on the Geekbench support forum and came across these replies from John at Primate Labs.


    So it looks like my assessment that GB scores had more to do with the amount of memory than they do with memory speed was off base.

    Just finished running GB after upgrading my 2011 Mac Mini Server from 4GB of RAM 1333MHz to 8GB 1333MHz RAM.

    64 bit test average of 5 runs for each set of RAM

    4GB - 9379
    8GB - 9577

    so while it looks like doubling the RAM from 4GB to 8GB does increase GB scores some what the increase amount of RAM alone does not account for the performance scores shortcut3d was seeing with the 1866 MHz RAM.
     
  22. shortcut3d thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2011
    #22
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

    I also found the same quotes in the Geekbench forums.

    In addition, the overall score is weighted so it may not capture the full benefit of the RAM speed increase. I'll look at my browser history for OSX memory scores, but I think I only saved Windows which are significantly higher than Lion.
     
  23. shortcut3d thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2011
    #23
    Only found Windows x64 scores:

    Memory Scores:
    32-bit 6814
    64-bit 7279
     
  24. Bunyak macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    #24
    Sorry for reviving an old thread but it is somewhat relevant to my issue. I noticed that some 2011 Mac Minis recognize Kingston HyperX 1867 Mhz RAM at 1867 Mhz. My 2011 Mini only recognizes this RAM at 1600 Mhz.

    Does anyone know how I can tweak my Mini to recognize the RAM at 1867?
     

Share This Page