Now that the new Santa Rosa MBP's finally support up to 4GB of RAM, is that going to be the upper limit for the foreseeable future? I don't know what kind of architectural limits will be imposed by the Penryn or Nehalem platforms, but just in terms of the number of available slots likely to be included in future MBP revisions, and the availability of higher capacity DIMMs, it looks to me like it could be awhile (2 years, even?) before you'll be able to cram any more than that into a laptop. Am I off base here?
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.
4GB Limit to last awhile?
- Thread starter brianus
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's a limitation based on the memory controller, sometimes operating system, and not the processor.
Santa Rosa should support 8 GB once 4 GB SODIMMs show up.
Santa Rosa should support 8 GB once 4 GB SODIMMs show up.
Do you mean the current Santa Rosa machines will be able to take advantage of these, or a future revision to that platform? ..and when do you spoze the 4-giggers will show up?
I remember something in one of Intel's documents on the PM/GM965 chipset that 8 GB access is already in the Santa Rosa platform.
For Apple it'll more then likely just mean a new MacBook Pro with firmware modifications once 4 GB SODIMMs are out.
8GB access is available in the platform because it's 64-bit and can address beyond the old 4GB limit. That doesn't mean the chipset actually supports the channels/ranks used by an 8GB configuration. I don't know exactly what technology goes into a 4GB SO-DIMM, but Intel places some precise limits on what the memory controller supports.
Here is Intel's official datasheet for the MBP's chipset. The memory controller documentation starts on page 65.
I saw 8 GB mentioned somewhere aswell, and the desktop versions supports it doesn't they? But then they have 4 slots aswell.
May not work with 8GB when 4GB memory modules are out, might do. In any case it's not needed for long I suppose.
I think what they really need to improve are the bandwidth to the memory. Intels FSB are still shared between cores isn't it? And they already uses two cores on what is more or less the same memory bandwidth as one had earlier. On desktops they have raised the memory clock a little but not twice.
And with quad core there will be even more need for faster ram.
Are there any benchmarks out on intel vs amd quad cores yet?
May not work with 8GB when 4GB memory modules are out, might do. In any case it's not needed for long I suppose.
I think what they really need to improve are the bandwidth to the memory. Intels FSB are still shared between cores isn't it? And they already uses two cores on what is more or less the same memory bandwidth as one had earlier. On desktops they have raised the memory clock a little but not twice.
And with quad core there will be even more need for faster ram.
Are there any benchmarks out on intel vs amd quad cores yet?
just got these and they work fine..
http://www.pcconnection.com/IPA/Sho...878&oext=1038A&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=7073878
http://www.pcconnection.com/IPA/Sho...878&oext=1038A&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=7073878
Are you joking? (Didn't see the smiley) Or have you actually tried these in a MacBook Pro?
if you have the money and the technology is avaliable, you should be able to do it
chances are you won't have any need for 8gb when they come out
chances are you won't have any need for 8gb when they come out
Yes, I have heard that Santa Rosa can support 8gig when the chips come out/drop in price.
I read this someplace credible, can't remember where.
I have a Santa Rosa 2.6ghz, 17" so I took note.
LOL so if those things are 8000 bucks, I guess Apple would charge $24,000 if you bought it from them!
FYI, even if you had unlimited money and a machine capable of addressing 8 GB of RAM, that doesn't mean it's something you should do. Each bit of RAM installed actually costs a small performance overhead. If you don't have enough RAM to operate your computer in the way you normally use it, then adding more RAM delivers a huge benefit that far outweighs the small extra drag it costs your machine to have it installed. However, if you already have enough RAM for the way you run your computer, then adding more RAM will actually slightly slow your machine down! And it'd be a waste of money too.
I don't understand? So our computers are just going to get slower in the future because they'll ship with more RAM?
I believe you are incorrect. Adding more RAM will not slow the computer down. Not even a little bit.
With some types of memory it does actually slow the system down. RIMM's get slower (higher latency) as you add more memory in. I also read that the Mac Pro's memory also gets increased latency with more ram.