4GB better than 8GB?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by strausd, Mar 26, 2010.

  1. strausd macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Location:
    Texas
    #1
    OK, so I am running OS X 10.6.2 and just recently upgraded my unibody 3.06ghz MBP from 4GB to 8GB of RAM. I used geekbench to test it out and for

    -4GB the three scores were: 4624, 4622, 4625
    -8GB the three scores were: 4622, 5615, 4596

    -the memory performance for the three with 4GB respectively were: 2904, 2883, 2884
    -the memory performance for the three with 8GB respectively were: 2861, 2869, 2870

    Now correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't more RAM generally make one's computer faster? I don't understand how I doubled the RAM and so no improvement, in fact it seems that it would be better for me to keep the 4GB in. Can someone explain to me what the heck is going on here?

    Thanks
     
  2. sammich macrumors 601

    sammich

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Location:
    Sarcasmville.
    #2
    More RAM mans you can run more Applications. Running a test like that doesn't test that.
     
  3. strausd thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Location:
    Texas
    #3
    So it was just coincidence that each time I ran it with 4GB it was better than with 8GB? And I also just changed from "better battery life" to "higher performance" and im getting in the 4300s and 4200s, I don't understand how this can be normal.
     
  4. sammich macrumors 601

    sammich

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Location:
    Sarcasmville.
    #4
    Differences less than 1% are ignorable.

    There are also a tiny issue of the computer having twice as big a space to manage memory.

    When you said you changed to High performance, was it the overall score that changed to 42-4300? Or the memory score?
     
  5. bsblvnv macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    #5
    Try this

    Run the exact same tests, but do it with as many apps running as possible, things that really tax the memory. Do it with both 4GB and 8GB and you should see a pretty big difference
     
  6. sammich macrumors 601

    sammich

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Location:
    Sarcasmville.
    #6
    Won't work. If the memory was full both under 4GB and under 8GB then any app wanting memory would wait the same time for the system to free up memory.

    Besides, a benchmark like that would probably try to grab as sequential a segment of RAM as possible. Meaning every result should be very close regardless of how much memory was free.
     
  7. CylonGlitch macrumors 68030

    CylonGlitch

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Location:
    SoCal
    #7
    The way things work is the more memory in the system the more the management the memory needs. This management is done by the CPU and thus there is a little less CPU to perform the tasks; thus the performance goes down.
     
  8. omgitscro macrumors 6502a

    omgitscro

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2008
    #8
    Cyclon is correct. More RAM is pretty much always better. Benchmarks are never a good indicator of system performance when it comes to daily use. When you have backups running (Time Machine) and many tabs in Safari, even 4GB doesn't cut it. With 8GB, you're improving performance and runtime. More RAM widens the gap between applications accessing the RAM and applications accessing your (slower) hard drive.
     
  9. SA22C macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    Top Gear Test Track.
    #9
    Geekbench is measuring the rate of transfer to and from the RAM. That doesn't change based on capacity. So a Mac with 2GB of RAM and a Mac with 8GB of RAM will score the same in terms of transfer rates, providing the RAM is the same speed. What higher amounts of RAM will do is allow more applications to run without paging to disk. Paging is what slows down most computers.
     
  10. strausd thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Location:
    Texas
    #10
    it was the overall score
     
  11. strausd thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Location:
    Texas
    #11
    Well if that's true, why was there still such a big difference?
     
  12. dal20402 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2006
    #12
    There wasn't. That difference is tiny and negligible.
     

Share This Page