The new benchmarks are posted at OWC:
http://eshop.macsales.com/Reviews/MacBook/Testing/Memory_Benchmarks
http://eshop.macsales.com/Reviews/MacBook/Testing/Memory_Benchmarks
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.
3GB of RAM in MacBook?
- Thread starter marekkurlmann
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nice one! I had been keeping an eye out for this - thanks!
Check out - http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/8300945231/m/553008874831/p/2
I think so, but there's a hardware issue that prevents the computer from recognizing all four GB. I'm sure someone can explain it more technically than I can.
More like what they think they can charge the customer for their over-priced RAM!Apple has consistently underquoted the ram capabilities of their machines in the past, based on what the "normal consumer" could afford. It's been pointed out right and left on various powerbooks, etc.
You can trust whoever you'd like, but don't so readily assume that everyone else is a lost cause
Pixelmator on 2GB MacBook vs 3GB...
I just ordered a refurb'd Black MacBook IC2D 2.16 and as a normal practice with me, I buy the maximum ram usually from Crucial as they've been priced very competitively lately, for any new computer I purchase as recommended by Apple or the ram vendor, within budget reasons of course. ;-) I won't have either one till this coming Monday, 10.1.2K7 and I have already placed my order for the 2GB from Crucial and should have it the same day. Then, I just ran across a 3GB option for my MB in an google search for MB IC2D benchmarks, offered by OWC. I do respect them highly and I've purchased many products from them in the past but until now I was wondering if I had missed out! I plan on using the MB mostly with iMovie 08 and the newly released Pixelmator. But if what I'm reading here is correct, I believe 2GB should do just fine and possibly even better with Pixelmator due to it's design to use the GPU & Core Image. I wonder if Apple had previously tested the 3GB setup and knew it didn't work well in the MB or the Mac mini due to the Intel GMA 950 limitations and a possible noticeable performance hit on Core Image and therefore didn't offer it as an option? Seems like there was an issue with the MBP & iMac IC2Ds and 3GB vs 4GB due to some type of memory controller problem not too long ago? Oh well I might miss that extra 1GB and I might not. I suppose if I hadn't started the google search I wouldn't have known. I'm at work and I couldn't view the OWC specs since it's a blocked web site till I get home in a couple of hours from now. I could've used my iPhone but with dull EDGE...need I say more?
BTW I did upgrade. long ago, an old iBook G3 SE 466 above the maximum ram specified by Apple: 320MB, since OWC offered a 576MB option! 64MB was on the motherboard back in the day on those models. I never tested it or anything but I'm sure it helped while I was running Jag and Panther.
Current system: iMac 20" ICD 500GB HDD, 2GB, 256MB VRam & a 8GB iPhone. On 10.1.2K7 Add: Black MacBook 2.16 IC2D 2GB 160GB HDD Previous: iBook SE G3 466 576MB 60GB HDD 8MB VRam & a Powerbook PB100
I just ordered a refurb'd Black MacBook IC2D 2.16 and as a normal practice with me, I buy the maximum ram usually from Crucial as they've been priced very competitively lately, for any new computer I purchase as recommended by Apple or the ram vendor, within budget reasons of course. ;-) I won't have either one till this coming Monday, 10.1.2K7 and I have already placed my order for the 2GB from Crucial and should have it the same day. Then, I just ran across a 3GB option for my MB in an google search for MB IC2D benchmarks, offered by OWC. I do respect them highly and I've purchased many products from them in the past but until now I was wondering if I had missed out! I plan on using the MB mostly with iMovie 08 and the newly released Pixelmator. But if what I'm reading here is correct, I believe 2GB should do just fine and possibly even better with Pixelmator due to it's design to use the GPU & Core Image. I wonder if Apple had previously tested the 3GB setup and knew it didn't work well in the MB or the Mac mini due to the Intel GMA 950 limitations and a possible noticeable performance hit on Core Image and therefore didn't offer it as an option? Seems like there was an issue with the MBP & iMac IC2Ds and 3GB vs 4GB due to some type of memory controller problem not too long ago? Oh well I might miss that extra 1GB and I might not. I suppose if I hadn't started the google search I wouldn't have known.
I'm at work and I couldn't view the OWC specs since it's a blocked web site till I get home in a couple of hours from now. I could've used my iPhone but with dull EDGE...need I say more? BTW I did upgrade. long ago, an old iBook G3 SE 466 above the maximum ram specified by Apple: 320MB, since OWC offered a 576MB option! 64MB was on the motherboard back in the day on those models. I never tested it or anything but I'm sure it helped while I was running Jag and Panther.
Current system: iMac 20" ICD 500GB HDD, 2GB, 256MB VRam & a 8GB iPhone. On 10.1.2K7 Add: Black MacBook 2.16 IC2D 2GB 160GB HDD Previous: iBook SE G3 466 576MB 60GB HDD 8MB VRam & a Powerbook PB100
Holy thread ressurrection, Batman!
I'm sorry to hear your Enter key is broken --- you really need some paragraph breaks in that post.
On any Core2Duo machine you have a choice
2 Gb (2 x 1 Gb) with Dual Channel access
3 Gb ( 2 Gb + 1 Gb) in Single Channel mode (6% - 8% drop vs. Dual channel , but improvement in large programs due to the extra 1 Gb. Photoshop and iPhoto both benefit greatly. YMMV with different programs)
4 Gb with 2 x 2 Gb with Dual Channel Access. Restores the dual channel speed. However, only the Santa Rosa machines (AlumiMac and SR Macbook Pro 2.2 and 2.4 GHz) will see the full 4 Gb. All previous Core2Duo models will show 4 Gb in About this Mac but the OS can only utilize 3.3 Gb of that. This is a hardware limitation of pre-SantaRosa chipsets (not a defect or an 'issue' per se).
I'm sorry to hear your Enter key is broken --- you really need some paragraph breaks in that post.
On any Core2Duo machine you have a choice
2 Gb (2 x 1 Gb) with Dual Channel access
3 Gb ( 2 Gb + 1 Gb) in Single Channel mode (6% - 8% drop vs. Dual channel , but improvement in large programs due to the extra 1 Gb. Photoshop and iPhoto both benefit greatly. YMMV with different programs)
4 Gb with 2 x 2 Gb with Dual Channel Access. Restores the dual channel speed. However, only the Santa Rosa machines (AlumiMac and SR Macbook Pro 2.2 and 2.4 GHz) will see the full 4 Gb. All previous Core2Duo models will show 4 Gb in About this Mac but the OS can only utilize 3.3 Gb of that. This is a hardware limitation of pre-SantaRosa chipsets (not a defect or an 'issue' per se).
Holy thread ressurrection, Batman!
I'm sorry to hear your Enter key is broken --- you really need some paragraph breaks in that post.
On any Core2Duo machine you have a choice
2 Gb (2 x 1 Gb) with Dual Channel access
3 Gb ( 2 Gb + 1 Gb) in Single Channel mode (6% - 8% drop vs. Dual channel , but improvement in large programs due to the extra 1 Gb. Photoshop and iPhoto both benefit greatly. YMMV with different programs)
4 Gb with 2 x 2 Gb with Dual Channel Access. Restores the dual channel speed. However, only the Santa Rosa machines (AlumiMac and SR Macbook Pro 2.2 and 2.4 GHz) will see the full 4 Gb. All previous Core2Duo models will show 4 Gb in About this Mac but the OS can only utilize 3.3 Gb of that. This is a hardware limitation of pre-SantaRosa chipsets (not a defect or an 'issue' per se).
I decided to take the plunge and upgrade my 2.33 ghz MBP to 4 GB of ram even though it can only support 3 gb. I decided i didn't want that degradation in graphical performance. So I hope everything goes ok.