6GB in MacBook (Pro); Yes it works. - 8GB... well...

[ayeying]

Active memory is "Active". Its basically cached memory so nothing in the ram goes to waste. If you open a program, say, Mail.app, then quit it and reopen it again, you'll notice it'll open a lot faster because the memory for that program is already cached.

This isn't Windows XP here where active memory means its "in use" and when you close it, it goes to "Free" memory again.

In OSX, it is cached. I wouldn't worry about the Active memory part because OSX will release the memory if another program requires it.

Wired - Actual in use
Active - Cached for Programs opened/running in background
Inactive - Cached for programs closed/might be used
Free - Free

 

[Brien]

i doubt they will let the 15" ram go free until the 17" sales go properly up.
thats one of the main differences between the two, apart form more screen real-estate

Considering Apple conveniently 'compares' max RAM capacity of the two models, I'm betting that support for 8GB is a "feature" for the 17", which would mean no support in the 15" until a future revision.

I seriously hope I'm proved wrong.

(OT: It looks like a lot of people are trading up from 15" to 17" Unibodies. To those people, how are you liking it? I'm thinking about it, that HD screen is tempting.)

 

[ayeying]

Considering Apple conveniently 'compares' max RAM capacity of the two models, I'm betting that support for 8GB is a "feature" for the 17", which would mean no support in the 15" until a future revision.

I seriously hope I'm proved wrong.

(OT: It looks like a lot of people are trading up from 15" to 17" Unibodies. To those people, how are you liking it? I'm thinking about it, that HD screen is tempting.)

I've owned the Black MacBook, Unibody MacBook, MacBook Air Rev A, 15" MacBook Pro Discrete Model and currently the 17" MacBook Pro Unibody and I must say, I love the 17" the best. The screen is just gorgeous and the system is very powerful. My main concern was portability but thats actually not an issue. Its not that much bigger vs my older 15" Discrete MacBook Pro and at 6.6 lbs... well, if you think that's too heavy then you really need to get stronger. I carry this along with several books around campus with no issues. The Unibody MacBook at 4.5 lbs isn't that much lighter especially with all those stuff in the bag... not to mention I include the Power Adapter because ~4 hours on the MacBook isn't enough compared to the 7+ hours on the 17".

 

[Brien]

Thanks for the reply. I'll probably hold off a bit longer and hope that Blu-ray finds it way into a MBP sooner than later. But my next MBP will definitely be a 17".

 

[Croatian]

I think Apple is being gay when it comes to letting us used more then 4GB in your 15" MBPs... If you look at the new iMacs the base 24" with 9400M graphics one of the options you can do on it is upgrade from 4GB to 8GB

and now apple upgraded the base processor for MBPs from 2.53 to 2.66 so for those of us that got it when it came is like giving us one more slap on our face

 

[nateDEEZY]

Hi guys, thanks for all of the useful information. I've spent the last hour or so reading the "entire" thread. This has obviously been going on for quite a while. Although it has been established that a Macbook Pro 2.6 4,1, as with other models, has the ability to exceed the 4GB of ram use that Apple says these systems are capable of, I haven't found any statistics which compare the increase in performance when moving from the 4GB to 6GB margin. Conventional wisdom would suggest adding more ram to be gainful. Though adding too much ram, as with the (2) 4 GB modules, has already been proven to have an adverse effect. Has anyone compiled numbers which show the increased benefits under the circumstances mentioned? I understand that many of you have been able to "access" the additional ram but does the hardware, software or the fact that your using a mismatched pair of 4 and 2GB modules negate any significant increase in performance over (2) 2GB modules? Any hard numbers would be of interest.

I can't find the source, you're welcome to search for it it was a comparison on a laptop 4GB vs 6GB of ram, and the performance gains from it in regards to what a certain manufacture was offering. They ran hard numbers and the performance gains on a laptop going from 4GB to 6GB was incremental at best. Basically what the review was saying is that for the price that the manufacture was offering 6GB and 8GB upgrades over 4GB, it wasn't worth it.

Wired - Actual in use
Active - Cached for Programs opened/running in background
Inactive - Cached for programs closed/might be used
Free - Free

That's nearly how Vista works, yet people consistently call it a memory hog.

 

[Brien]

I think Apple is being gay when it comes to letting us used more then 4GB in your 15" MBPs... If you look at the new iMacs the base 24" with 9400M graphics one of the options you can do on it is upgrade from 4GB to 8GB

and now apple upgraded the base processor for MBPs from 2.53 to 2.66 so for those of us that got it when it came is like giving us one more slap on our face

Are you serious? Do you honestly think 130mhz is going to make any difference? It's not about the processor speed, everyone I know who upgraded from the 15" to the 17" did it for the screen and/or battery life.

 

[ayeying]

I think Apple is being gay when it comes to letting us used more then 4GB in your 15" MBPs... If you look at the new iMacs the base 24" with 9400M graphics one of the options you can do on it is upgrade from 4GB to 8GB

and now apple upgraded the base processor for MBPs from 2.53 to 2.66 so for those of us that got it when it came is like giving us one more slap on our face

That different is extremely small, so small that you won't even notice it.

That's nearly how Vista works, yet people consistently call it a memory hog.

However, in Vista, the ram usage is a little higher, especially on the Active/Wired side. Sure, it has the same principles but theres other stuff that slows the OS down, especially if you just had a new install. After a little while, Vista will speed up, then slow down like any other windows OS.

Are you serious? Do you honestly think 130mhz is going to make any difference? It's not about the processor speed, everyone I know who upgraded from the 15" to the 17" did it for the screen and/or battery life.

I upgraded from MacBook to 17" MacBook Pro because of the battery life and screen... sure the ram was a big bonus and the CPU speed was too but the battery life and screen were more important

 

[pyromaniaque]

Can anyone run some benchmarks showing the difference?

Is RAM more "important" than CPU clock speed in the long rong?

Is the difference between 2.66 and 2.93Ghz that great? I mean is it great enough that I would really notice it? I'd love to see some benchmarks for the 17" Pro.

I'm mostly just worried about portability... I mean, is 6.6lbs light enough that it could be placed on your lap while you are chilling on your couch? I don't really want some bulky monster that I can't do anything with.....

That 1920 x 1200 WUXGA screen is really tempting. I can't believe that the resolution on that thing is higher than HD. (Well I can, but that's awesome) The resolution is so high that if you were to get an external Blu ray drive, and play a movie full screen, even blu-ray quality would be lessened when blown up to fit the screen... I've seen it first hand. Definitely not the kind of laptop you want to watch a normal DVD with on full screen. And it's even wider than HD (16:10 vs. 16:9).... But is all that pizazz really worth the price hike?

But damn... 8gb is also tempting. With that much power, you could be set for like the next five years without having to "really" having to switch computers if you're a normal user.

Gosh, by the time I have enough money for one, Apple will already have started putting Core i7's "aka Core 3", in their laptops. I might as well wait till the latter part of the year and see if it comes out on Macs. Then, we'll see some REAL performance.

 

[dal20402]

Is RAM more "important" than CPU clock speed in the long rong?

For anyone who doesn't use their computer only for CPU-intensive apps, yes.

Is the difference between 2.66 and 2.93Ghz that great? I mean is it great enough that I would really notice it? I'd love to see some benchmarks for the 17" Pro.

If the difference would matter to you, you would know it. Unless your income is tied to how fast your CPU can crank out work, you won't notice.

 

[ayeying]

Can anyone run some benchmarks showing the difference?

Is RAM more "important" than CPU clock speed in the long rong?

Is the difference between 2.66 and 2.93Ghz that great? I mean is it great enough that I would really notice it? I'd love to see some benchmarks for the 17" Pro.

I'm mostly just worried about portability... I mean, is 6.6lbs light enough that it could be placed on your lap while you are chilling on your couch? I don't really want some bulky monster that I can't do anything with.....

That 1920 x 1200 WUXGA screen is really tempting. I can't believe that the resolution on that thing is higher than HD. (Well I can, but that's awesome) The resolution is so high that if you were to get an external Blu ray drive, and play a movie full screen, even blu-ray quality would be lessened when blown up to fit the screen... I've seen it first hand. Definitely not the kind of laptop you want to watch a normal DVD with on full screen. And it's even wider than HD (16:10 vs. 16:9).... But is all that pizazz really worth the price hike?

But damn... 8gb is also tempting. With that much power, you could be set for like the next five years without having to "really" having to switch computers if you're a normal user.

Gosh, by the time I have enough money for one, Apple will already have started putting Core i7's "aka Core 3", in their laptops. I might as well wait till the latter part of the year and see if it comes out on Macs. Then, we'll see some REAL performance.

1. I don't have any benchmarks to show, but I figure if you see a bigger number with the same family of chips, it means its slightly faster.
2. Depends. If you're running stuff like encoding/rendering, both CPU and Ram would be important. If you're using Virtual Machines or stuff that are ram hungry, then ram is more important.
3. That also depends on what you do. If you're working with photoshop or even pro applications, the difference would be marginal. However, if that extra 5 seconds of rendering is too much, then go with the 2.93GHz.
4. I carry this beast around the house and to campus. I feel no difference overall because I don't carry my adapter with me anymore. On my MacBook, i still have to carry around the power adapter because the battery would be gone way before my day is over.
5. I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about here...
6. People are still using PPC systems with no issues. Sure, technology would be updated but it doesn't make your system useless.

 

[pyromaniaque]

Can anyone please show me the results of benchmark differences between the 4gb and the 8gb? I am dying to know whether the loss of dual channel really has an impact on the overall speed.

 

[ayeying]

Can anyone please show me the results of benchmark differences between the 4gb and the 8gb? I am dying to know whether the loss of dual channel really has an impact on the overall speed.

It usually does not, and even if it does, its in the range of being so small that you won't notice it.

 

[pyromaniaque]

So does 6gb mean increased performance?

 

[ayeying]

So does 6gb mean increased performance?

If whatever you're doing requires a lot of ram, yes.

Personally, I use a lot of virtual machines, and 4GB is clearly not enough since I'm always being thrown into swap.

 

[Patriks7]

and now apple upgraded the base processor for MBPs from 2.53 to 2.66 so for those of us that got it when it came is like giving us one more slap on our face

Wow. Are you joking? The MBP has been out for like 5 months before this update came. First people complain that Apple doesn't offer enough upgrades, now people will start complaining that they shouldn't upgrade? Wow.

 

[m85476585]

Can anyone please show me the results of benchmark differences between the 4gb and the 8gb? I am dying to know whether the loss of dual channel really has an impact on the overall speed.

I posted benchmarks a while ago for 4gb to 6gb. Memory operations were a few percent slower, but overall, the hard drive is still a bottleneck, and more memory helps eliminate that (something my benchmarks don't show). And wouldn't 8gb be dual-channel since the modules would match?

 

[bartzilla]

I think Apple is being gay when it comes to letting us used more then 4GB in your 15" MBPs... If you look at the new iMacs the base 24" with 9400M graphics one of the options you can do on it is upgrade from 4GB to 8GB

So did you buy your MBP based on what the chipset might have been able to do or based on the Apple specs? I purchased mine based on the Apple specs meeting my needs there and then. Which isn't to say that I wouldn't want the option to put 8Gb in there later if I could... just that nobody promised me that when I purchased the computer so I don't feel I can complain about it.

Hey I bet your MBP isn't a rocketship or a boat. And much like the 8Gb update, those aren't on the spec either. There you go, something else to complain about.

and now apple upgraded the base processor for MBPs from 2.53 to 2.66 so for those of us that got it when it came is like giving us one more slap on our face

Wow. Just... wow. I don't feel like anyone slapped me in the face over a minor processor speed bump. Frankly, you need to get out more if this is the biggest problem in your life.

 

[pyromaniaque]

These the simplest question:
Will the 6gb upgrade make the overall system faster or slower.

Will programs generally open faster of slower.

Will the lost of dual channel memory, but the addition of more raw memory aid in games?

Will converting video be faster because of the addition?

 

[m85476585]

These the simplest question:
Will the 6gb upgrade make the overall system faster or slower.

Will programs generally open faster of slower.

Will the lost of dual channel memory, but the addition of more raw memory aid in games?

Will converting video be faster because of the addition?

It depends. Programs will probably open a bit faster since the OS will cache more in memory. Converting video might be slightly slower, but I think the CPU will still be the limiting factor. I don't know about games.

The only time I ever notice the difference is when I'm running VMWare Fusion, which is much faster with the extra memory.

 

[vassillios]

If I add 1x4GB and 1x2GB, totaling 6GB; or just using 1x4GB; do I lose dual channel?
- Yes, you do lose dual channel.

Do you lose dual channel in both cases or just when using the 1 4gb stick?

 

[ViciousShadow21]

Do you lose dual channel in both cases or just when using the 1 4gb stick?

both cases. the memory has to be the same size, ie 2X4GB 2X2GB 2X1GB ect ect.

 

[ayeying]

Okay, so a few posts back (too lazy to search) in this thread some people asked if it was possible to use a 17" Unibody MacBook Pro's OSX install in a 15" or 13" MacBook (Pro) to see if the 8GB limitation is indeed a software issue.

I took the liberty of using a 17" UMBP installed OSX and run it on my 13" Unibody MacBook along with 8GB ram that is tested and confirmed to work in the 17" UMBP.

The results can be found here:

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=7408187

 

[Mastamarek]

so ... can a 2.53Ghz MBP take 8Gb of ram or not!?? I ve read all those pages and I still dont have an answer

 

[handheldgames]

Pulled the trigger on a 2.66 MBP based on what i've been reading. Was going to go with a 2.4, but the ability to go to 8gb with the RAM-Hungry snow leopard due shortly - Hopefully it's a good gamble. Could go with a 17, but its just to big.