Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

4GB Kingston HyperX SODIMM in a Macbook Pro

Some more results:

Currently in Vista Business x64 SP1

I can now run Assassin's Creed at 4/4 Detail with absolutely 0 lag whatsoever. I'm not sure why because upping the ram shouldn't improve FPS. This is not a valid sign that more ram = more fps, its just from what occured. Loading Assassin's Creed used to take 20 seconds from 1% to 100%. Now, its close to 2 seconds from 1% to 100% load.

Sins of a Solar Empire improved on FPS. All "High" details running on native resolution.

Edit: CoD4 on all High has improved on FPS also. Even with Sins of a Solar Empire and Civ4 Colonization running in the background, I still have 1097 MB of free (not cached) ram according to Vista's Task Manager.
 
ayeying said:
Rebooted into Windows Vista x64 Business, SP1 native. So far, the system runs great. Boot time has dramatically increased in Vista. System score dropped to 4.8 (from 5.1) due to lack of Dual Channel. However, it doesn't seem like it has effected much of anything else.

Running Civ4: Colonization, alt tabbing in and out seems smooth, less lag, and yadada.
Click to expand...

This is all excellent news, and the 8 gig kit is starting to look reasonable in price. May have to bump up my MBP real soon.

Thanks for your efforts. I think this 4 gb/8 gb argument is much closer to being closed. Apple has apparently not handicapped the SR chipset like they did with the first iteration of the Calistoga chipset.
 
If anyone else have a program or whatnot for me to test, I'd be glad to. Just tell me which program and if I have it (or if its downloadible) I'll test and be glad to give you the results.

Btw, whats Print Screen on the Mac Keyboard in windows? or is there one?
 
ayeying said:
If anyone else have a program or whatnot for me to test, I'd be glad to. Just tell me which program and if I have it (or if its downloadible) I'll test and be glad to give you the results.

Btw, whats Print Screen on the Mac Keyboard in windows? or is there one?
Click to expand...

I know it's a very long read, but, read this thread if you have the time..
http://forums.mactalk.com.au/29/581...k-works-macbookpro-1x4gb-1x2gb-6gb-works.html

that guy also installed a 4gb stick bringing his MBP total to 6gb, just like you. The interesting part of this, somewhere in the middle of that thread, is that some guys gave him a code to run to test the memory, you could try that also if you have the time.
 
wesrk said:
I know it's a very long read, but, read this thread if you have the time..
http://forums.mactalk.com.au/29/581...k-works-macbookpro-1x4gb-1x2gb-6gb-works.html

that guy also installed a 4gb stick bringing his MBP total to 6gb, just like you. The interesting part of this, somewhere in the middle of that thread, is that some guys gave him a code to run to test the memory, you could try that also if you have the time.
Click to expand...

According to one of the posts in that thread, it states that even a Mac Pro with 10GB physical ram have a similar problem when executing that script. It seems like its an OSX problem running on a 32-bit kernal.

I'll try running the script later tonight
 
ayeying said:
Some more results:

Currently in Vista Business x64 SP1

I can now run Assassin's Creed at 4/4 Detail with absolutely 0 lag whatsoever. I'm not sure why because upping the ram shouldn't improve FPS. This is not a valid sign that more ram = more fps, its just from what occured. Loading Assassin's Creed used to take 20 seconds from 1% to 100%. Now, its close to 2 seconds from 1% to 100% load.

Sins of a Solar Empire improved on FPS. All "High" details running on native resolution.

Edit: CoD4 on all High has improved on FPS also. Even with Sins of a Solar Empire and Civ4 Colonization running in the background, I still have 1097 MB of free (not cached) ram according to Vista's Task Manager.
Click to expand...

I assume only SR and later MBP 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 support 8GB. The C2D 2.16 & 2.33 are limited to 4GB by the chipset, correct?

Cheers,
 
With the new MB and MBP a few weeks off I am going to hold on until they are released, depending on the specs I might upgrade the memory or upgrade the laptop (I lease my equipment).

But thanks for all the help :cool:
 
ezekielrage_99 said:
With the new MB and MBP a few weeks off I am going to hold on until they are released, depending on the specs I might upgrade the memory or upgrade the laptop (I lease my equipment).

But thanks for all the help :cool:
Click to expand...
DDR3-1066 looks like the Montevina standard. Who knows if the nVidia MCP79A will show up.
 
Eidorian said:
DDR3-1066 looks like the Montevina standard. Who knows if the nVidia MCP79A will show up.
Click to expand...

I'm really hoping we see an ATi 3000HD option for the Macbook Pros after the issues with the 8600M GT chipsets I haven't had much faith in nVidia...
 
Eder6301 said:
do your homework people.... the current operating system cant acess more than 4g of ram... leopard its a 32bit system so it cant read it......
Click to expand...

Oops. Watch out when you make derogatory comments like this, when you are wrong (as is the case), your tone forfeits any sympathy that might otherwise have come your way.

Thanks to the advent of virtual memory management (25+ years ago), every process that runs on the CPU can have its OWN 2^32 machine words of memory. Processes often share many of their pages (for memory mapped devices or shared memory or operating system entry points). If 32-bits is larger than the available physical memory, the OS will usually give you virtual disk memory (it doesn't have to though). If the combined memory space of all of the devices is larger than the available physical memory, then lots of those pages spill out onto the virtual disk. But it can go the other way too. If you have more physical memory than 2^32 machine words, then each process can get its own little slab of that memory. Technically 100 processes can together share 100 * 2^32 machine words without resorting to any page swapping. You know, hardware wise, a 4 bit machine can talk to 32 gigs of memory (or more) so long as the right hardware sits between the CPU and the memory (I know this because I had to design one for a rocket telemetry system on an intel 8751). So the "x-bit" in "x-bit OS" has no bearing on how much memory can be "seen" (remember XMS and EMS? There are ALWAYS tricks).

But I hear what some people are saying. Theoretical mumbo jumbo... that isn't the reality of OS-X, right? Even though the hardware can deal with the memory, the OS is STILL responsible for specifying where each of those "pages" of memory points. Which means that there is an array somewhere that tells it "page 4 points to real memory page 2717" or whatever). If the OS never thought it would have to contend with 8 gigs, then when each context switches, it might only update the pages for the first 4 gigs. Fixing this isn't magical. It's usually one silly set of functions that need to be rewritten. There may be ramifications (setting all those pages takes twice as long which throws off something or other and affects performance... there isn't enough memory in that shared page to hold the new map... there are lots of reasons), but it can usually be done without throwing out an entire operating system (though sometimes that's easier as Apple may not be devoting manpower to helping out your cause).

When apple stated 4 gigs as the max, it was referring to what it had tested at the time that it gave its seal of approval. At that time, 2gig chips were rolling out the door. The OS was only tested with those chips. Even if 2 4-gig sodimms aren't supported right now, it doesn't mean that they can't be supported in the near future.

Wow... so this is what caffeine does for forum posting.

Yes yes... I'm sitting here bored, waiting for my girlfriend. Max Payne starts in 2^5 minutes. Hopefully, it'll kick 2^64 bits of ass.
 
Ooooo... my girlfriend wanted me to make sure to point out that I'm only ranting against the "do your homework people..." response, and that while I'm proud of my big pretentious brain, I could possibly be completely out to lunch on assuming Mac's aren't purposefully sabotaging an 8-gig config.

I guess in the end, I'm crossing my fingers, because I have a 4gig macbook pro with 2 gigs dedicated to a winXP fusion session wherein I run SQL server, Vis Studio 2008, Microsoft Blend, Zam3d and Blender, and when it thrashes, it is ugly. :p
 
Kingston Hyper X on Pre-Santa Rosa MBP

Hi Guys was wondering if the Kingston Hyper X will make a large difference on my Pre-Santa Rosa MBP compared to using Corsair Value RAM?

Intel Core 2 Duo 2.16Ghz
4GB Corsair Value RAM
 
I have a feeling that the new MBP 17" (early '09) will accept and work with 8GB RAM without a hitch since you can upgrade to that in the order area. Seems like this makes sense, but it is good to verify. Anyone disagree?
 
ayeying said:
I do have photoshop installed, both CS3 and CS4 beta. However, I'm not extremely good with them so I'll need some instructions.

Current state, I've booted up Windows Vista Business, x64 SP1 via Boot Camp Partition in VMWare Fusion 2. Allocated 4GB to virtual machine and left 2GB for OSX. So far, the boot speed for Vista is slow (well obviously) but VMWare actually take a bit of time to allocate the physical memory. However, the system does start up, virtual machine does read 4GB and activity monitor states 4GB is used to VMWare.

Here's a screenie for you guys.
Click to expand...

Very nice - exactly what I was thinking of doing with 8GB RAM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back